Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a footpath and cycleway. We have not investigated this complaint further, because Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision and we do not have the power to deliver the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council colluded with a district council to approve a planning application for a cycle and footpath on land in front of his home.
2. Mr X said his home was on a quiet cul-de-sac, but he will now have pedestrians and cyclists passing by the front of his house.
3. Mr X would like the Council’s planning decision to be reversed.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with Mr X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
7. I gave the Council and Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of any comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies on the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• access to the highway;
• protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• the impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• views over another’s land;
• the impact of development on property value; and
• private rights and interests in land.
11. Planning matters are separated into ‘county’ and ‘district’ planning matters. Applications by a county council for its own developments are dealt with as county matters.
12. Councils may approve applications, subject to a planning condition requiring the applicant to enter into a separate planning agreement. Council powers and appeal rights relating to these agreements are found in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The agreements are usually referred to as ‘section 106’ agreements. The agreements are in the form of a deed, which is a form of contract that is legally binding on the parties that sign it.

What happened

13. The Council applied for permission to open a footpath and cycle way. The Council’s own planning authority considered the application. A case officer wrote a report setting out their views on the application.
14. The case officer’s report included:
• a description of the application and site;
• the planning history and background;
• details of consultation responses, including residents’ comments;
• details of a section 106 agreement that provided funding of the cycleway;
• details of relevant planning policy and guidance;
• an appraisal of the main planning considerations, including the need for the development, the impact on the historic and natural environment and highway safety.
15. The Council approved the application subject to planning conditions.

My findings

16. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. Where we find fault in the decision-making process, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant. To do this, we need evidence to show that, but for the fault, the outcome would have been different.
17. Mr X is concerned there will be more people using the road in front of his home. I do not consider this to be a significant injustice. I realise the change to Mr X’s environment is upsetting to him, but I do not consider this is something we can or should remedy.
18. Mr X wants us to quash the Council’s planning decision. This is a remedy only the High Court can deliver upon an application for judicial review. The Council may decide in certain circumstances to revoke planning approvals, but this is a matter for its own discretion.
19. Without evidence of a significant injustice to Mr X or the power to achieve the outcome Mr X wants, I should not investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I ended my investigation as Mr X was not caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision and we have no power to deliver the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman