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 in relation to his concerns about the development not being subject to a Community Infrastructure Levy.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the decision to grant planning permission was not in line with the Council’s policy and the Council did not properly consider his objections. Mr X says the new development will have a significant impact on his property. He also says the development should be subject to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment.
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 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 Mr 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.
The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the case officer decided the application was acceptable in terms of scale, height, bulk and appearance. The officer also decided the development would not harm the character of the area or have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. 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.
Mr X has also complained the Council has not imposed a CIL charge on the development. The Council says the development does exceed the threshold for CIL, but relief has been applied as the property will be the applicant’s main residence. I understand Mr X disagrees, but even if I could find fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant personal injustice as a result.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not been caused significant injustice in relation to his concerns about the development not being subject to a CIL payment.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman