Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to his complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his complaint about the actions of a councillor and planning permission for the change of use of a property. He said this has had an impact on his physical and mental health. He would like the Council to reconsider the planning permission and conduct a community impact assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his complaint about the actions of a councillor regarding planning permission for the change of use of a property near his home.
7. In response to enquiries, the Council said it had first received Mr X’s complaint via his Member of Parliament (MP). The Council provided a response to the MP and explained the role of the councillor in relation to the planning application, and the procedures in place to ensure democratic decision making and appropriate governance.
8. Mr X later complained to the Council about the matter directly.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The planning committee also considered the acceptability of the development.
12. However, if we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant injustice because the Council did not respond to Mr X directly regarding the outcome of his complaint about the actions of a councillor. This delay has caused avoidable frustration and lack of clarity for Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. The Council agreed to resolve Mr X’s complaint by taking the following action within four-weeks of our final decision:
1. Apologise for not responding directly to his complaint about the actions of a councillor
2. Explain why the Council did not take forward his complaint about the councillor’s actions under the arrangements for Dealing with Allegations of Breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members and Co-opted Members

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman