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 complaint
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development in the area where he lives. Mr X says the Council failed to notify all the residents affected by the proposal and has not properly assessed the impact the development will have. Mr X also says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered 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.
Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the planning application and its decision to grant planning permission. He says the Council has not been transparent and did not properly consider the impact the development would have on residents and the area. Mr X has also raised safety concerns about the development.
I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The case officer decided there would be limited impact on the highway and said the impact on residential areas would be negligible. The case officer also contacted the relevant consultees, and no objections were raised. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening was also carried out and it was decided the proposal was unlikely to cause significant environmental impacts and therefore an EIA was not required. Mr X has raised concerns about possible safety issues. However, the Council consulted the Health and Safety Executive on the planning application and application for hazardous substance consent.
I understand Mr X believes the Council should have done more to consider the impact the development would have. But the Council was entitled to decide it had sufficient information to assess the proposal.
Mr X says residents were not properly consulted about the application. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. In this case, the Council wrote to residents of properties near the site. Mr X says further consultation should have been carried out. But even if the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the Council did still properly consider the impact of the development. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had more residents known about the proposal and objected.
Mr X says the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. But the Council’s decision not to refer the application to the committee was in line with its constitution. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault.
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.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman