Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council was biased in its recommendation to approve a planning application. The Council’s Planning Committee rejected the application. Therefore, the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council’s Planning Officer was biased in favour of a planning applicant. She said the Planning Officer’s report supported the application despite resident views; that they presented misleading information to the Planning Committee and were over familiar with the applicant. Mrs X said the proposed development would negatively impact on the area she lives in.
2. Mrs X states the Council has not responded to all her questions in her complaint. She wants the Council to stop the development from occurring.

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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Planning Officer’s report, and the recommendation to approve the development. The Planning Committee did not approve the application. Therefore, any alleged faults have not caused Mrs X a significant injustice as the Council refused the application.
9. In addition, we are not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. The Council follow the correct process for consulting on the application. The Planning Officer’s report considered the objections to the development. However, they decided that any adverse impact could be mitigated against. Although Mrs X disagrees with that decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in how it was made to justify our involvement.
10. The applicant has appealed the Council’s decision to the Planning Inspectorate. Mrs X states that if the Planning Inspectorate overturn the Planning Committee’s decision, she wants the Council to agree to a judicial review of that decision. We cannot direct the Council to commit to that action. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.
11. Mrs X said the Council has not responded to all her questions. It is not our role to answer every single question a complaint may have about what the Council did. The Council has provided a substantive response to the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any alleged faults have not caused her a significant injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman