Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the council did not respond to his complaint in line with its complaints policy, and did not adequately respond to his complaint about a planning application. He said the planning permission had risked his plans for his own property and he cannot consider other legal routes to rectify trespass on his property. He wanted the Council to review his complaint and the planning permission in question.

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. (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 the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties or the character of the area.
9. 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 application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless there was fault in how the decision was made. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely that I could find fault.
10. Mr X said the Council did not adequately respond to his complaint about the planning permission. In its complaint response, the Council said all material planning considerations had been considered before planning permission was granted.
11. Mr X said a public comment on the planning permission had been contested. In its complaint response, the Council said it did not consider the removed comment would have had a bearing on the outcome of the planning application.
12. Mr X complained the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman