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 personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Ms X says the Council failed to properly consult with residents and the decision to grant planning permission was based on misleading information and was not in line with planning policy.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 Ms 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. Ms X has raised many concerns about how the planning application was dealt with. However, Ms X does not live in one of the neighbouring properties affected by the development. Therefore, I do not consider she has suffered any significant personal injustice because of any fault with how the application was dealt with.
7. Furthermore, even if Ms X did live in one of the neighbouring properties, my decision not to investigate would be the same. 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. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant permission.
8. Ms X has complained about the accuracy of the case officer’s report and says the committee members were misled. However, the Council has explained how it measured the proposal. The planning committee members would also have had access to the objections raised by residents so would have been aware of Ms X’s concerns about the development. Ms X says the case officer should have visited neighbouring properties to properly assess the proposal. But councils are not required to visit neighbouring homes when considering a planning application and the impact of a proposal can often be established from the development site.
9. I understand Ms X may disagree with the Council’s assessment of 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.
10. Ms X says the case officer did not properly consult residents and did not return her calls. Councils are required to give publicity to applications. In this case, residents were notified about the development and had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Councils do not need to consult residents further once they have commented on the proposal. I understand Ms X may have been frustrated the case officer did not return her calls. But I do not consider the injustice caused as a result would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman