Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development in his village. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Even if there has been fault, the Ombudsman should not investigate because the development will not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice, and he cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a village. He complains about the way the Council and Development Committee dealt with a planning application for a residential scheme on land on the outskirts of the village.
2. Mr X says he has to drive past where the development will be to leave the village. He says the additional traffic and on-street parking will make roads congested and dangerous, causing him significant personal injustice.
3. Mr X wants the planning committee to meet again to reconsider the application, this time with a recommendation from the Council for committee Members to refuse the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online maps and planning documents;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

7. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault by the Council or Members of the Development Committee to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The information shows Council officers and committee Members followed the appropriate planning process. Officers gathered relevant information on the application and the development site and presented this to Members for them to make their decision.
8. The Council’s planning report shows officers noted objections and responded to the material planning issues they raised. I recognise Mr X does not agree with the Council’s view that the objections did not give grounds for refusal. But it was not fault for the Council to reach a different view and recommend the permission to be granted. If the planning committee Members disagreed with the Council’s recommendation, it was open to them to vote against it.
9. The Council consulted with the relevant local highways authority (LHA). It considered traffic, highway safety and parking issues on and off the site. It is not fault for a council to take account of the professional judgement of a planning consultee such as an LHA. Mr X disagrees with the LHA’s opinions about the suitability of the proposed development’s roads, parking provision and impact on local traffic and road safety. But there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to go behind an LHA’s properly reached professional judgement.
10. I have not seen evidence officers misled committee Members at the planning meeting or in any written information, or that Members’ concerns were ignored. If Members considered the information given was lacking on any material planning issue, they could have asked to defer the decision for more information to clarify it. This includes the issue of the development’s affordable housing element.
11. Mr X says the Council ignored residents’ views. The planning report shows the Council noted the objections and responded to the material planning issues they raised. It is the strength of material planning arguments, not the strength of feeling or numbers of objections, which is key to decision‑making in the planning process. I recognise Mr X does not agree with the Council’s views on the objections, that they did not give grounds for refusal. But it was not fault for the Council to reach a different view and recommend the permission to be granted. If the committee Members disagreed with the Council’s recommendation, it was open to them to vote against it.
12. In any event, even if the Ombudsman were to find fault in the planning process which would have resulted in a different decision by Members, I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate. I understand Mr X feels strongly about the matter, but I find the planning decision does not cause him the significant level of personal injustice required to justify an Ombudsman investigation.
13. I say this because Mr X lives on the opposite side of the village to the development site, about half a mile away. The development and its residents will have some impact on the village, including services and roads. Mr X, along with other residents, will drive on those roads. But if Mr X and other drivers have to take some additional care when passing the development, due to the impacts of any extra traffic or parking, I do not consider that to be a significant personal injustice to him. I realise Mr X is frustrated and annoyed at aspects of the planning process and how he considers that process failed. But that in itself is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant an Ombudsman investigation here.
14. Mr X wants the Council to repeat the committee hearing, with planning officers recommending Members refuse the permission. In reaching my view that the Ombudsman should not investigate, I also take into account that he cannot order a local planning authority to re-run a committee process, or to reconsider a planning permission which it has granted. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks, a further reason for him not to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or Development Committee to warrant an Ombudsman investigation;
• the proposed development permitted by the committee does not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X which would justify an Ombudsman investigation;
• the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman