The Ombudsman's final decision
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 complainant has also not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development in the area where she lives. Ms X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and her objections were not properly considered. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on the area and highway safety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area, highway safety and parking, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. The case officer also consulted the Local Highway Authority (LHA), and no objections were raised.
Ms X says the LHA was not asked specifically about possible parking issues. But the LHA was consulted and could have raised any concerns it had about the development. The case officer also explained why the parking arrangements for the development were acceptable.
I understand Ms X disagrees. But the case officer 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.
Ms X says the Council did not properly publicise the application. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
The Council says it erected a site notice and placed a notice in a local newspaper. It also wrote to the residents of the neighbouring properties. Before the application was determined, the plans were amended. The Council re-consulted residents, but Ms X says this was done as an afterthought.
However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I could not say Ms X has been caused significant injustice as a result. Ms X was still aware of the changes to the plans and had the opportunity to comment on the application before the Council granted planning permission. It is also unlikely any alleged fault with the publicity for the planning application affected the planning decision as the Council did still properly consider the acceptability of the proposal before granting permission.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not been caused significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman