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 Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. He says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and the development will have a significant impact on his property.
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 before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on Mr X’s property. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residents in terms of loss of light or privacy to warrant the refusal of the application. The Council also further addressed the impact on Mr X’s home in response to his complaint.
Mr X says the development has damaged his fence. However, this will not be a planning matter and concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and the developer.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its 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 says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application and he lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X known about changes to the plans and objected to the proposal.
Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
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 because of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman