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 complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of Ms Y about how the Council has dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the decision to grant planning permission was based on misleading information and the development is not in line with the Council’s planning policy. Mr X says the Council previously refused an almost identical application for the site and the development will have a significant impact on Ms Y’s property.

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 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, 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 Ms Y’s objections and addressed the concerns she raised. However, the officer decided there would not be unacceptable harm to outlook or natural light.
8. Mr X says the Council refused a similar application for the site due to the impact on Ms Y’s home. He also says the Council failed to visit Ms Y’s property to assess the impact. However, the Council has explained in response to Mr X’s complaint how the amended development overcame the reasons for refusing the previous application. Councils are also not required to visit neighbouring properties to assess an application and the acceptability of a proposal can often be determined from the development site.
9. I understand Ms Y disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman