Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing a wedding venue to operate from a building in the complainant’s local area. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has been irresponsible by allowing a wedding venue to operate from a development/building in the local area. He says the Council’s decision is contrary to comments previously made by a Planning Inspector regarding the impact large gatherings would have on the safety and living conditions of local residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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 Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications and appeal decision for the site, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
• Mr X’s comments on an earlier version of this decision statement.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s decision that a wedding venue can operate from this site.
6. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• whilst the Planning Inspector’s decision commented on the impact certain other use classes might have on the area due to their potential to attract significant numbers of people, I also note the planning permission does not include a condition restricting the number of visitors allowed under the permitted use classes.
• the Stage 1 complaint response explains the Council’s reasons for deciding that a wedding venue falls into the use classes allowed under the planning permission for the development. That is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it.
• as the Council is satisfied the wedding venue falls within the permitted use classes, it has no power to retrospectively restrict the number of people attending the premises in association with that use.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman