The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault by the Council.
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 wrongly changed the site address and did not refer the application to the planning committee for determination as it should have.
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
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.
In this case, the Council’s policy says minor applications (applications for between one and nine dwellings) will be referred to the Council’s planning committee if objections are received from 15 or more households. Householder applications will only go to the committee if it is referred by a ward councillor or if the application is on behalf of members of the council.
Ms X says the Council incorrectly classed an application for a development near her home as a householder application. The application was determined by officers using their delegated authority. However, Ms X says the proposal would have been referred to the Council’s planning committee due to the number of objections received had the application been correctly classed as a major or minor development. Ms X says she believes the committee would have refused planning permission for the development due to the impact on the greenbelt.
The Council says it has sought legal advice and accepts that the development could have been considered as a minor development rather than a householder application.
However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Ms X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the greenbelt and nearby properties, before granting planning permission. The report referred to Ms X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided the development would not result in harm to the openness of the greenbelt and said the design of the development would not be out of place in the setting. The officer also considered the impact on neighbouring properties but decided that given the significant separation distances the development would not cause harm.
I understand Ms X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable.
Ms X says she believes the planning committee would have come to a different conclusion. We can never know if the committee would have granted or refused the application. However, as the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it more likely than not the planning decision would be the same had the application been referred to the planning committee for determination.
Ms X has also complained the Council changed the site address for the development. However, the Council has explained why it changed the address. I understand Ms X disagrees, but I cannot say she has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council reconsulted residents following the changes and Ms X was able to object to the proposal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman