Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a planning application for building works next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X says his neighbour’s planning application was approved without it being properly verified or discussed. He says it is hard to believe the objections were actually read, and he is sceptical that the delegated decision process was thorough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application, including the delegated officer’s report, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy his neighbour’s planning application was approved.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application, so we will not start am investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated officer’s report.
• the report considers the relevant material planning considerations and provides the reasons for the decision. Officers were entitled to use their professional judgement when deciding if the proposal was acceptable, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusions reached.
• Case law has established that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed on the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

• Each planning application is assessed on its own merits.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman