Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Authority’s decision to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Authority’s decision to approve a planning application for a property close to her business. She says the Authority failed to apply its policy correctly. This is because its’ action plan for the area states that it will not allow any development which may cause a damaging effect to an existing community facility.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 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.
6. The Authority’s Local Plan published in 2022 states:
   “Development and change of use that would result in the loss of, or have an unacceptable adverse effect on, an existing community facility will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that:
   - the current use is no longer needed or a suitable replacement has been secured; and
   - the land or building could not fulfil or is not needed for an alternative community use.”
7. The Council received a planning application to create a driveway and dropped kerb onto the highway close to Mrs X’s business.
8. Mrs X and others including the parish council objected to the application as it would reduce on-street parking which would have a negative impact on passing trade for the business.
9. The planning officer prepared a report on the application. This included the objections received and relevant local and national policies including the Local Plan. The planning officer explained why they considered the proposal was acceptable.
10. The application was referred to the Authority’s planning committee. Mrs X spoke to the committee explaining her objections to the application.
11. Having considered the application, the committee decided to approve the application.
12. I understand Mrs X raised several concerns about why she believes the development is not acceptable. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the objections made by the parish council and others including Mrs X when it decided to grant planning permission. Where we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision, we will not question the outcome or criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Authority considered and decided to approve the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman