Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council told him the plans for the development would be amended and he would have a further opportunity to object to the proposal. However, Mr X says the Council approved the original plans without communicating with him further. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.

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))

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. 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.
5. 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.
6. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on the area and neighbouring properties. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s home.
7. Mr X says the Council told him the plans would be amended, and he would have an opportunity to comment on the changes. However, the Council did not consult Mr X, and the original plans were approved. The Council says at the time Mr X spoke to the case officer, it believed the plans would be amended, but it was later decided this was not necessary. It has accepted this was not communicated to Mr X.
8. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard. The Council still considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer also considered the comments Mr X raised in relation to the original plans and addressed the concerns raised. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the decision not to amend the plans or if he had been able to raise additional objections.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman