Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council decided to grant planning permission for a site near Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly approved a planning application at a site near his home. He says the development is causing him to lose sleep and affects the enjoyment of his home. Mr X wants the Council to properly assess the suitability of the development and reduce the impact on residents.

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,
• (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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning permission at the site was granted some time ago. This was a new planning application to add lighting and amend the hours of use at the site. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider the impact of the development on local residents. He said the assessments and decisions it made were flawed. However, the officer report considered the impact on local residents and the concerns raised about the development. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council considered the impact on residents’ amenity.
7. I understand Mr X said the lighting and noise from the site cause his sleep to be disturbed. He also raised concerns about the impact on local wildlife.
8. The Council considered a lighting impact assessment when it decided to grant permission for the lighting. It also decided the impact of noise on local residents was acceptable when it granted the original application for the site. The Council told Mr X the additional two hours the site would be used did not impact the original decision regarding the acceptability of the development. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement.
9. The Council placed a condition on the decision to mitigate the impact on wildlife. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the impact of the development on wildlife and bats when it made its decision. Therefore we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.
10. We look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman