Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council sent the local planning authority in connection with applications and enforcement action which Planning Inspectors later decided on appeal. There is not enough evidence to show the injustice Mr B claims flows from the Council’s actions rather than the Inspectors’ decisions, so the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code and it does not warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council provided false information to the local planning authority about the school access and attendance of relevant children, for planning applications and enforcement action which the Planning Inspectorate later considered and decided on appeal.
2. As a result he says Planning Inspectors granted permission for development they would not have done, and the continued use and development of the relevant land has a significant and avoidable harmful effect on other residents including him and his family.
3. He wants the Council to:
1. acknowledge its officers’ fraud and unprofessional behaviour;
2. admit providing fraudulent evidence which influenced the Planning Inspector’s decisions to approve the development;
3. admit discrimination against the residents affected; and
4. investigate what happened, review and change its policies and procedures, and issue a public statement on these matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• 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’s responses to his complaints.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B does not claim specific injustice directly from the Council’s actions but from what he considers to be the results for decisions by the Planning Inspector.
8. We, however, cannot do the same as the Inspector’s decisions are more complex. Although they may have given significant weight to access to education for applicants’ and other occupiers’ children, we could not say on balance it was a decisive reason.
9. Planning decisions must take into account all material planning considerations and usually reflect a balancing exercise by the authority, or by a Planning Inspector on appeal. The Inspector’s decision Mr B sent us with his complaint plainly sets out the principle that the personal needs of applicants may or may not outweigh harm to a site or its surroundings. That appeal decision sets out the Inspector’s balancing and reasons for their decision in 54 paragraphs covering a range of factors. It is likely any other appeal decisions on related applications and enforcement action will have done the same.
10. We could not say on balance the Council’s actions led to the claimed injustice, as any injustice flows from the Inspectors’ decisions which we cannot investigate. So we do not need to consider further whether the Council was at fault in some way. It follows we cannot achieve the result Mr B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to show the injustice in his complaint flows from the Council’s actions rather than decisions the Council is not responsible for. The complaint does not therefore meet the tests in our Assessment Code and does not warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman