The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development next to the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude fault in the decision-making process is likely to have affected the outcome, and the Council has provided an appropriate response to the short ‑ comings in its communications.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development next to his home. In particular, he says: council officers initially said they were unhappy with the scheme but, following a change in personnel, it was approved with only minor amendments.
the Council delayed in uploading an amended plan.
officers failed to reply to emails and telephone calls.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can 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. So, we do not start 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, or we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy planning permission has been granted for this development.
But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and consider whether the alleged fault is likely to have influenced the decision to grant planning permission. If the outcome is likely to have been the same but for the alleged fault then, from our perspective, the complainant is not normally deemed to have suffered a significant injustice.
Although the Council has acknowledged there was a certain degree of administrative confusion in the latter weeks leading up to the determination, I am not persuaded this has affected the decision on the planning application. The Ombudsman will therefore not start an investigation into this part of the complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that: The objections received were summarised in the case officer’s report, and Mr X was able to reiterate his concerns to the case officer during a telephone conversation in early-January 2024, prior to the planning permission being issued.
The volume of opposition to a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing planning permission.
The case officer’s report acknowledges the concerns raised by officers involved with the original proposal. The report goes on to assess the impact of the amended proposal on the character/appearance of the area, and on Mr X’s amenity.
Planning decisions and judgements can often seem inconsistent, and while councils aim for consistency through the application of local and national policy, a divergence of opinion and approach is inevitable where different decisions and judgements are made by different people at different times. Where opinions differ, we are not able to say which are right or wrong.
The case officer’s recommendation was reviewed by a senior planning officer before the decision was issued.
It was ultimately for the Council to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining the planning application, even if Mr X disagrees with the balance that has been reached.
The Council has also acknowledged the level of communication, at times, fell below expected standards, and apologised that this had been Mr X’s experience of its planning team. I am satisfied this was an appropriate way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault in the decision-making process is likely to have affected the planning decision, and the Council has provided an appropriate response to the short‑comings in its communications.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman