Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Council’s decision to grant planning permission does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider objections or previous refusals when determining an application for planning permission for a new dwelling. He says access to the site and parking are insufficient, the Council ignored the Local and Neighbourhood Plans and that the dwelling approved is too tall. He also claims several of the documents provided are inaccurate or unacceptable.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission but I have not seen enough evidence of fault in its handling of the application for us to question it.
5. The planning officer’s report shows how the Council considered the application and there is sufficient detail to show it took into account those issues which were relevant to the planning process.
6. The reports summarises the objections to the proposal and although it does not list any previous refusals in the planning history, this does not invalidate the decision. The objections note there is no reference to the previous application and refusal and the report sets out why, in the officer’s opinion, there are no grounds to refuse the current application. We could not therefore say the omission wrongly affected the outcome.
7. The planning officer’s report notes the development does not entirely comply with the Local and Neighbourhood Plans but explains the reasons why it is acceptable. This does not mean the Council has ignored the Plans; rather it gives justification for deviating from them, as it is entitled to do. It also refers to responses from consultees on issues such as biodiversity and highways considerations (access and parking) and it is not for us to say its view on these issues is wrong.
8. Mr X’s main concerns centre around access to the site and he wants to know who will be responsible for any damage to the access road. But ownership and maintenance responsibilities are not a planning consideration; these are private civil matters. Mr X may therefore wish to seek legal advice on this point. We cannot in any event recommend a remedy for an injustice which has not yet happened.
9. Ultimately Mr X believes the Council should reconsider the decision and rescind the planning permission, but this is not an outcome we can achieve.
10. Mr X is also concerned about disruption from construction work but this is temporary and there are sufficient barriers and distance between Mr X’s property and the development site that any impact from the work and the finished development would not be significant. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its decision causes Mr X significant injustice. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman