Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development in the area where he lives. Mr X says the Council failed to consult residents about the application and the impact of the development was not properly considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
5. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, environment, traffic and highway safety before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The relevant third parties were also contacted about the application and the acceptability of the scheme was considered by the planning committee.
7. Mr X has raised concerns about the impact the development will have on local services. However, the Council has explained why it did not require the developer to provide a contribution to mitigate the impact of the development. I understand Mr X says any further development in the area should be paused until the necessary infrastructure is in place. But the Council will need to consider any application it receives on its own merits.
8. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
9. Mr X has also complained the Council failed to properly tell residents about the application. However, the application was publicised as required. Furthermore, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the impact of the proposal was properly considered. Therefore, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had more residents been aware of the development and objected.
10. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the application was publicised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman