The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the development will have a significant impact on his home. He has also raised concerns about highway safety and says his property has been damaged during the construction of the development.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
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.
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 Mr X’s home and the surrounding area. The case officer also considered the impact on highway safety and protected trees before deciding the proposed development was acceptable.
I understand Mr X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use their 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.
Mr X has also raised concerns about dust and noise from the construction site. The planning permission was subject to a condition to protect amenity during construction. The Council says it spoke to the developer in response to Mr X’s concerns to ensure best practices were followed to minimise dust and noise disturbance. The Council says it has not received any complaints from Mr X since. However, if Mr X has any further issues in this regard, or if he believes the planning conditions are not being complied with, he can report it to the Council so it can consider the matter further.
Mr X says his home has been damaged by the development. However, concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and the developer.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman