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 in how the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application relating to a development nearby. He said the decision to grant planning permission was not properly considered. He also said the Council wrongly interpreted a key policy which deals with the impact on his residential amenity.
2. Mr X said he will be adversely affected by noise, disturbance and other nuisance because of the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I also considered the planning documents on the Council’s website as it relates to this complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the building plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations include matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. In this case the decision was taken by a planning committee (PC), and it was for the PC to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining the planning application.
9. 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. I have considered the planning report and the notices that were available to the PC when it made its decision about this application.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council made its decision.
11. The purpose of the planning report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
12. The planning report shows it highlighted the key issues within the application including the impact on residential amenity including noise and disturbance given the nature of the proposed development.
13. In addition, the Council’s planning website shows the PC had access to comments and photographs submitted to it by residents and therefore would have had the opportunity to consider it when they approved the application.
14. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the planning application, including the impact on neighbouring properties, including Mr X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman