Summary: We will not investigate Mrs 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 to warrant it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council failed to properly consider objections or previous refusals when determining an application for planning permission for a new dwelling. She 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. She 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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Concerns were raised about the impact on Mrs X’s property and in response the applicant altered the proposal to reduce any potential overlooking; the planning officer therefore determined it would not result in any harmful impact on neighbour amenity and this was a decision they were entitled to reach.
8. Ultimately Mrs X believes the Council should reconsider the decision and rescind the planning permission, but this is not an outcome we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of council fault to warrant it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman