Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council did not consult with the Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) Office when it approved a planning application for a property close to 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’. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X has complained to the Council about a planning decision it took in 2014. Mr X complained that despite the planning site being in an AONB, the Council did not consult with the AONB Office. Mr X says the AONB Office has told him that if it had been consulted, it would probably have agreed with Mr X’s concerns about the application.
6. In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council said:
• It was down to the case officer to decide whether to contact the AONB Office.
• The officer did take into account that the application was for a site in an AONB – and this is shown in the planning officer’s report.
• As well as the building itself, the officer considered the landscaping around the development.
• It did not feel there had been any maladministration.
7. The Ombudsman is not a right of appeal for people who disagree with planning decisions. Those affected by planning decisions can comment on applications, while those who have their applications rejected can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The role of the Ombudsman is instead to look for administrative fault. We cannot criticise a council’s decision if there was no fault in how the decision itself was reached.
8. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application at the heart of his complaint. But the Council has provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to his complaints. There is no evidence the Council has failed to follow its published policy. The planning decision was taken over six years ago. Even if the AONB Office had agreed with Mr X’s concerns, it does not mean the eventual decision would have been different. Even if we were to investigate, we could not say the involvement of the AONB Office would have led to a different outcome. On balance, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman