Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application for development near the complainant’s home. The then local planning authority refused the application. The Planning Inspectorate granted planning permission independently following an appeal. Any fault by the then highways authority could not have caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about a planning application for development near his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and information on the Council’s website. Mr B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council is the successor to local planning authority (LPA) that considered the planning application at the heart of Mr B’s complaint. It is also successor authority to the highways authority (HA) the LPA consulted about the application.
6. Mr B says the HA provided inconsistent advice to the LPA and failed to request documents necessary to assess the safety and practicality of the proposed development.
7. The LPA decided to refuse the planning application. However, the applicant appealed against the refusal to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government through the Planning Inspectorate (PINS).
8. PINS considered the planning issues independently. It was entirely a matter for the Planning Inspector to decide what weight to give the views of the HA. It decided to uphold the appeal and grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because PINS decided independently to grant planning permission and decided what weight to give to the HA’s views. I therefore do not consider any fault by the HA can have caused Mr B injustice that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman