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

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development in the area where she lives. Ms X says the Council’s planning committee did not consider the proposal objectively and pre-determined the outcome of the application.

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. (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 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 the area and biodiversity at the site, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The application was also discussed during the planning committee meeting before members voted to approve the application.
8. Ms X says the committee did not consider the proposal with an open mind. However, the acceptability of the development, including the impact on local wildlife, was debated during the meeting with opinions given in favour and against the scheme. Members were entitled to go against the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission and some members did vote against approving the application.
9. 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.
10. Ms X has also complained the Council refused her request for a full Council debate following the submission of a petition against the planning application. However, it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council in this regard. The Council’s arrangements for dealing with petitions says that if a petition receives over 1,000 signatures it will trigger a debate at full council. However, this process will not apply for petitions about planning applications. The Council has also explained why the petition will not be debated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman