Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for a housing development. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council did not follow the proper process and did not consider the impact of the development when it decided to grant outline planning permission for a housing development. Mrs X says this has caused distress and concern. Mrs X wants the Council to identify a different access route to the new development and to consult properly with residents

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider the impact on the local area and residents during the planning application process. Mrs X said the access road to the new development would be unsuitable.
8. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
9. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

10. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
12. I am satisfied the Officer’s report properly considered the suitability of the access road when making its decision. The Council imposed conditions to mitigate the concerns raised by Mrs X and other local residents. The Officer’s report summarised and addressed residents’ objections
13. Mrs X said a planning application for the site had previously been refused. The site history was summarised in the Officer’s report and the Council told Mrs X each case is considered on its own merits.
14. Mrs X said the Council did not consult with residents on the changes to the plans. However, even if the Council did not consult with residents as it should have, it is unlikely this would have impacted the planning decision as I am satisfied the Council still properly considered the acceptability of the proposal. Therefore Mrs X has not suffered significant injustice.
15. Mrs X also complained the application was decided by a delegated officer instead of a full planning committee. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
16. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development and it is likely that the decision would have been the same if it had been considered by a full committee. Therefore no significant personal injustice has been caused to Mrs X.
17. Mrs X said the local ward Councillor should have called the application in to be considered by a full planning committee. If Mrs X believes the Councillor breached the Code of Conduct by not calling the application in, she can make a separate complaint to the Council's Monitoring Officer.
18. I understand Mrs X is unhappy about how long it took the Council to make a decision about the planning application. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. I am not satisfied that Mrs X has suffered a personal injustice as a result of any delays.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no significant personal injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman