Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission on an application. He said the development did not comply with local policies and would cause problems with parking. In particular, he complained the Council:

• Ignored errors in the planning officer’s report;
• did not consider objections and showed favouritism towards the applicant;
• approved the application, despite refusing a similar application previously; and,
• held meetings in a room where members of the public could not properly hear the planning committee’s discussions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the planning documents on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

7. 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. I have considered the documents available on the Council’s planning portal webpage and the committee meeting recordings, which are publicly available.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.
9. Mr X complained about the planning officer providing their opinions in the reports. Officers are expected to give their professional judgement on the planning merits of a proposal. I note Mr X disagrees with the officer’s professional judgement, however that does not mean the officer has made a mistake.
10. Mr X also complains about factual errors in the case officer reports. The courts have held that planning officer reports do not need to be perfect and should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
11. The Council has responded to Mr X and told him where it accepts there were factual errors in the report, these have not had an impact on the overall decision-making. Having read Mr X’s concerns, I am satisfied that any errors he asserts are in the reports would be unlikely to have significantly misled the decision makers on the key, material issues and therefore further investigation by us is not proportionate.
12. From the planning documents, I can see the views of consultees and objectors were included in the reports and considered by the planning committee. Mr X was also able to upload his views to the Council’s planning portal and give his views in-person at the committee meetings. This includes Mr X’s views on the errors he highlighted in the planning officer’s report. Therefore, I am satisfied the planning committee were aware of Mr X, and other objectors’, concerns and considered them when making its decision.
13. Each planning application is considered on its own merits. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council for approving this application, even if it previously refused a similar one, if it followed the correct process when making its decision.
14. Finally, the Council has apologised to Mr X for the poor acoustics at the meeting. It said it has now improved the acoustics in response to complaints about this. Further investigation by us would not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman