Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council has not acted in line with its policies and the application should have been referred to the planning committee for determination. Mr X says the Council failed to address his concerns about the application and there was an error in the case officer’s report.

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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The Council received a retrospective application for a development near Mr X’s home. It is not unusual for planning authorities to request a retrospective application to regularise a development, and councils do not have to take formal enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
8. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the application and its decision to grant retrospective planning permission. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s concerns and addressed the material planning considerations. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area or cause significant harm to neighbouring properties.
9. Mr X says the Council did not consider the concerns he raised about fire safety, and says the applicant breached trading laws. Mr X’s concerns about fire safety are summarised in the case officer’s report and the officer said the issue would be addressed. The Council has accepted this did not happen. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. Fire safety issues are not a material planning matter and therefore it is unlikely the failure to address Mr X’s concerns in the report impacted the planning decision. The Council also raised the issue with its building control team and discussed the matter with the fire service. However, the building control department did not consider there to be a dangerous structure that required its involvement. Potential breaches of trading law was also not a material planning matter.
10. Mr X says the application should have been determined by the planning committee. However, I also do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault by the Council for not referring the application to the planning committee. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had the application been determined by the planning committee.
11. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman