The Ombudsman's final decision
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.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the case officer misled the planning committee members and the proposal will have a significant impact on his amenity.
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 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, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed his concerns. However, the officer decided the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of privacy or overlooking.
Mr X disagrees and says the case officer misled the planning committee members. However, Mr X spoke at the committee meeting and members were therefore aware of his concerns about the development. Members also discussed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on privacy, before voting to grant planning permission. Mr X says the photographs used during the case officer’s presentation misrepresented the situation at the development site. But members were also given copies of Mr X’s photographs and could have chosen to defer the application for a later meeting had they considered it necessary to get further information or arrange a site visit.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its 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 said consideration was not given to his human rights. We cannot decide if the Council has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not the Council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered the impact the development will have on Mr X.
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