Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with and decided a planning application for the development of a neighbouring property. There is not enough evidence of fault, nor sufficient significant personal injustice stemming from the matters complained of, to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next to a property which received planning permission for significant development. She complains the Council:
1. failed to refer the application to the planning committee to make the decision after saying it would be;
2. failed to tell residents the application would not be decided by the committee;
3. did not take into account underground water in the area when determining the application.
2. Mrs X says the Council denied her and other residents the opportunity to air their objections at the committee, causing them much stress and anxiety. She believes that if the committee had determined the application the decision may well have been a refusal. Mrs X wants the Council to revoke the planning decision and send the application to the committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received and granted permission for most of the planning proposals in an earlier application. The applicant added a new basement element, which the Council decided required another planning application.
6. Mrs X and other objectors received support from a local Councillor. The Council accepts officers initially expected the application to be decided by the planning committee and advised the Councillor of this. The Councillor then told the objectors the committee would decide the application. The Council’s policy does not require underground developments to be referred to its planning committee, irrespective of the number of objections received. After receiving public comments during the first consultation process, officers found the objections made related to the new underground portion of the development. Officers decided the application should be determined by its delegated officer decision process. The Council told the Councillor of this change but neither officers nor the Councillor told Mrs X or the other objectors.
7. The Council accepts it would have been better practice for officers to have advised Mrs X and other objectors directly of the process change which meant the planning application would not go to the committee. Officers have apologised to Mrs X for not doing so. That is the outcome we would have sought for this part of the complaint had we investigated. There is insufficient significant unremedied personal injustice to Mrs X from this issue which justifies us investigating.
8. We understand Mrs X believes the application may have been refused if it had gone before the committee. But even if the committee had been the decision‑maker, we could not now say the planning outcome would have been different, including a decision to refuse the permission. A different planning outcome at committee is speculative and is not a finding we could now make.
9. We note Mrs X considers she has been caused an injustice because she did not have the opportunity to put her objections to the development at the committee. Mrs X submitted her objections to the planning application during the normal consultation period. The Council received amendments to the plans during the process and invited Mrs X and other objectors to give further comments. The Council’s planning process provided three occasions for Mrs X and others to submit objections. Officers then considered and responded to them in their planning report. But even if it was fault for the Council not to refer the application to the committee, we will not investigate. A planning decision which goes against an objector’s wishes will upset them. Mrs X not having the opportunity to express her objections again, in person to the committee, is not a sufficient significant injustice warranting an investigation.
10. Mrs X says the Council did not take proper account of the impact of the new development on the area’s underground water. The Council’s planning report considered the matter. Officers were satisfied the ground water did not give them a planning reason to refuse the application and advised the implementation of the development would be a matter for Building Control. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council’s planning officers in their consideration of this part of the application to warrant us investigating. It will be for Building Control officers to ensure the development, including the basement, is implemented using the approved techniques and materials.
11. We recognise Mrs X may have understandable concerns about the possible impact of the development on her property. But any damage she may claim has been caused by the building works would be a private civil matter between her and the neighbouring owner or their contractors doing those works, and would not be due to Council action.
12. We note the outcome Mrs X seeks is for the Council to revoke the planning permission and for its committee to reconsider the application. We cannot order councils to revoke granted planning permissions and re-run planning processes. That we cannot achieve the complaint outcome Mrs X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice stemming from the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman