Summary: Mr X complains the Council granted planning permission for a proposal which contravenes its’ own policy. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as he does not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider its planning policy in full before granting planning permission for a development including 12 shepherds huts in a field 650 metres from his home.
2. He wants the planning permission withdrawn.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council including:
• Mr X’s objections to the planning application
• Mr X’s complaints to the Council and its responses
• The Council’s planning policy
• The case officer report and Council minutes
• Mr X’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X complains the Council failed to fully consider its policy on safe walking distances when granted planning permission for a development of shepherd huts for holiday lets near to his home.
8. He says he may suffer from vehicle movements and noise.
9. I have assessed Mr X’s complaint and reviewed the information he provided. I do not consider the possibility of noise from people and vehicles over half a kilometre away causes enough personal injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Nor can the Ombudsman require the Council to withdraw the planning permission which is Mr X’s stated goal.
10. Mr X says that the alleged failure to follow its own planning policy is a failure of local democracy which affects everyone in the district, not just those in the vicinity of the property concerned.
11. As stated in paragraph 4, the law specifically prohibits the Ombudsman from investigating complaints about matters which affect all or most of its residents. I am unable to consider this part of Mr X’s complaint.
12. Once built, should the approved development cause a noise nuisance, Mr X can ask the Council to investigate whether a statutory nuisance is occurring.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I cannot and will not investigate this complaint. We cannot investigate matters which affected all or most of the Council’s residents. And I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a personal injustice which warrants investigation. Nor can we achieve his desired outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman