Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development in her village. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman should also not investigate because the development will not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice. Mrs X wants the Council to re-run the planning decision-making process, which is an outcome the Ombudsman cannot achieve.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a village. Her complaint is about the way the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development on land on the outskirts of the village. She complains the Council ignored the many objections of local residents and misled the planning committee.
2. Mrs X says the development granted permission causes her injustice because she regularly walks along the road where the development will be, and the village will become urbanised, but without any of the facilities expected of a residential area. Mrs X wants the land to be retained for the health and enjoyment of future generations, and for the wishes of the local residents and Parish Council to be respected.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to hold another meeting with the planning committee where the correct information is given to the decision-makers, and the comments of local residents are not ignored.

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 Mrs X;
• viewed relevant online maps and planning documents;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X to reply, and considered her response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs X considers the Council ignored residents’ views. The planning report shows the Council noted the objections and responded to the material planning issues they raised. I recognise Mrs 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 planning committee Members disagreed with the Council’s recommendation, it was open to them to vote against it.
8. I have not seen evidence the Members were misled by information given at the planning meeting. Members made their decision on the entirety of the evidence available to them. This included many documents submitted by the applicant, the individual objections made, and the Council’s report, not just the planning committee discussions. If Members considered the information they had was lacking on any particular issue, and it was one they considered crucial in deciding how they should vote, they could have asked to defer the decision for more information to clarify the issue.
9. Even if I were to find fault by the Council here, the Ombudsman will not investigate. I understand Mrs X feels strongly about the matter, but the Council’s planning decision does not cause Mrs X the significant level of personal injustice required to justify an Ombudsman investigation. I say this because Mrs X lives on the opposite side of the village to the development site, about half a mile away. Mrs X says she regularly walks past the site. But I do not consider that is sufficient to be considered a significant personal injustice. The development and its residents will have some impact on the village, including services and roads. But the effect of this specifically on Mrs X does not amount to a significant personal injustice.
10. Mrs X says the matter causes injustice to the nature of the area, as well as its current and future residents, due to the loss of the site to housing and by bringing the village closer to another nearby settlement. But these are broader injustice claims the Ombudsman’s remit and complaints process cannot consider, because they are not injustices which are personal to Mrs X.
11. Mrs X wants the Council to repeat the planning committee hearing, to reconsider the application. 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 reconsider a planning permission which it has granted. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks, which is a further reason for him not to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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 Mrs X which would justify the Ombudsman investigating;
• the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman