Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications and possible breaches of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with planning applications and possible breaches of planning control at a site near her home. Ms X says the Council has failed to follow the proper processes and the development has a significant impact on her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

3. We 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. The Council granted permission for a residential development near Ms X’s home. Following this, the Council granted permission to vary the planning conditions and amend the approved plans. Ms X says a full planning application should have been made. But the Council was entitled to decide this was not necessary. Furthermore, even if I agreed there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The Council did still consult residents about the proposed changes and Ms X had the opportunity to object. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission. Therefore, it is likely the decision to grant permission for the proposal would be the same had a full planning application been made.
7. Ms X has complained about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a substation near her property. However, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the area, before granting planning permission.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the 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.
9. Ms X has also complained about how the Council dealt with possible breaches of planning control and says the Council has allowed the developer to harm a heritage asset.
10. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Government guidance stresses the importance of affective enforcement action to maintain public confidence in the planning system but says councils should act proportionately. Informal action can often be the quickest and most cost-effective way of achieving a satisfactory result. The council may also request a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
11. In this case, the Council looked into Ms X’s concerns. It decided there had not been a breach in relation to some of the issues raised as the development was being carried out in line with the approved plans and the planning conditions were being complied with. The developer did remove a heritage asset without permission. However, a retrospective application has since been approved to regularise the breach. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the retrospective application before granting permission. As the Council properly considered if it was necessary to take enforcement action, it is unlikely I would find fault.
12. Ms X has 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.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman