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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. Mr X says the Council has ignored his objections and he had difficulties accessing information about the application on the Council’s website. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property and his health has been impacted by the matter.

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))

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 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 Council also considered the impact on neighbouring properties in its assessment of a more recent application for a non-material amendment to the original plans.
9. I understand Mr X 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.
10. Mr X says information about the proposal was not made available and the Council’s website showed contradictory information about the status of the application. However, even if I did consider there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development. Therefore, I consider it likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X not had issues accessing the information about the proposal or if there had been further information available.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman