Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application and response to alleged breaches of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council repeatedly failed in its planning duties. She said it approved misleading plans and failed to tell her about key decisions. She said it dismissed her objections to the planning application without proper consideration and failed to take account of a style guide published by Essex County Council at intervals over several decades. She said the Council failed to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control. She said it was biased towards the applicant.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and checked the documents associated with the planning application on the Council's website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X is correct that some of the plans originally submitted were incorrect. They did not show the correct relationship of existing properties. However, the records show the Council required the submission of new plans, and re-consulted with neighbours before deciding the application. I note Mrs X was able to make more than one representation against the planning applications as her objections are on the system. Were we to investigate, we would be unlikely to find fault on that basis.
6. Planning authorities must take account of relevant planning matters when deciding applications. But they can decide what weight to give to them. Some matters, such as loss of a view, are not relevant planning matters. It is clear from the planning officer’s report that all the relevant planning matters raised by Mrs X were considered among others. I have not laid them all out in detail, but these included angles and possible loss of light, the effect on privacy, the scale of development and massing, the effect on the street scene via appearance, and the requirements of the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF) and the Local Plan for 2016-33. I would not expect the Council to also specifically have referenced the specific style guide mentioned by Mrs X in her complaint to us, though not in her submissions to the Council. That Mrs X has a different view to the Council of planning matters is not evidence of fault.
7. Planning authorities do not have to take enforcement actions against planning breaches. This is discretionary. But they must consider if there have been breaches, and if they require enforcement action or are minor in nature. In this case, Mrs X claimed there were multiple variations from the approved plans. I have not listed them all, but they included the height of windows, a brick course, and the design of a soffit. The Council considered all of them, and visited the site. It took the view that none of the changes was more than minor in nature and that there was no reason to take enforcement action. It could do that. If we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would find enough fault with the Council’s actions to warrant investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning application and alleged planning breaches to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman