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 about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council failed to properly assess the impact of the development and previous applications for the site were refused. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property and planning committee members did not visit the site before granting planning permission.

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 resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the case officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties or the character of the area. The acceptability of the proposal was also considered during the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X says the impact of the development was not properly considered and a light assessment was not carried out. He also says the drawings presented to the planning committee were not to scale and members did not visit the site. But the case officer’s report explained why the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents, including loss of light. The plans submitted with the application were also to scale and this information was available to committee members. There is no requirement for members to carry out a site visit before determining an application and members could have decided to defer the decision to a later date if they were not satisfied they had enough information.
9. Mr X says previous applications for the site were refused. However, the case officer’s report set out the site’s planning history and summarised the outcome of the appeals to the Planning Inspector. The site history and appeals were material planning matters, and the Council has explained how previous issues with the proposal were overcome.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use their 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

11. 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