Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mr Y have complained about how the Council has dealt with planning applications for a development near their homes. Mr X and Mr Y say the development does not comply with the Council’s planning policies and will have a significant impact on their properties.

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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and Mr Y and 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. In this case, the Council received an application for a residential development near Mr X and Mr Y’s homes. The Council considered the application and granted planning permission subject to conditions. The Council has since received further applications to amend the approved plans. Mr X and Mr Y have complained about the Council’s decision to approve the application to amend the plans for one of the plots included in the scheme. They say the decision is not in line with the Council’s supplementary planning document (SPD) and the Council has incorrectly said the development is exempt from biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the amended plans, including the impact the changes will have on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised, including concerns about compliance with the SPD and BNG requirements. The case officer decided the proposed changes were acceptable and would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of existing residents. The acceptability has also been considered again in a more recent application to amend the approved development.
9. I understand Mr X and Mr Y disagree with the Council’s decision to approve the application. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment 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.
10. Mr X and Mr Y have also 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 and Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman