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 suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Council failed to tell him when the application was decided, and he was not given the opportunity to participate in the decision process. Mr X says the Council has not explained how his objections were considered and he believes the applicant was told they could start work before planning permission was granted.

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 Mr 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 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.
7. In this case, 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. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact.
8. Mr X says the Council did not tell him when the application was approved, and he was not given the opportunity to participate in the decision process. But councils are not required to notify third parties about planning decisions and Mr X was notified about the application so he could comment on the proposal.
9. 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.
10. Mr X has raised concerns about the applicant carrying out works before planning permission was granted and says the Council allowed the unauthorised development to take place. The Council says it has no record of telling the applicant they could start work. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as the Council did ultimately decide the proposed works were acceptable and granted planning permission and listed building consent for the development.
11. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman