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 injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council removed his comments about the development from its website without notice or explanation. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property and has raised concerns about disruption during construction of the development. Mr X has also complained about how the Council deals with planning breaches and says its approach is inconsistent.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr 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. 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 Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard.
7. Mr X says his objections were removed from the Council’s website. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The case officer was still aware of his concerns and properly assessed the impact on Mr X’s home.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about the disruption caused during construction. However, disruption caused while a development is being built is not a material planning consideration.
9. Mr X says the Council has been inconsistent when considering planning breaches and retrospective planning applications. But councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach and it is not unusual for a planning authority to accept a planning application to regularise a development. Councils will need to assess the acceptability of a development on its own merits.
10. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint response and says the link it provided to the case officer’s report did not work. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result. The Council provided the correct link in its second stage complaint response, and this information was also available on the Council’s website.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman