Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s approval of a planning application for development at a neighbouring school. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council approving plans and discharging a condition for redevelopment work at a nearby school. He says that this has affected his amenity by loss of privacy and noise from the use of a hockey pitch. He says that the Council’s planning process was not independent and favoured approval of its own application.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s responses. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X says the Council approved its own planning application for redevelopment of a nearby school and sports pitches. He says the construction of an artificial hockey pitch was approved even though the Council accepted there would be some loss of residential amenity for him. He questioned the impartiality of the process when the Council was both applicant and planning authority and says the approving officer would be inherently in favour of approving the plans.
6. The plans were approved by a planning committee of members on the recommendation of a case officer. This is the normal planning procedure and there is no alternative authority to determine planning applications under the legislation. There is no evidence to indicate that the correct process was not adhered to.
7. Mr X also complained about advice given by the Council’s public protection officers to objectors when they challenged discharge of a condition on noise and environmental disturbance grounds. The officers gave advice to the objectors about their rights to seek an independent professional opinion of the development implications and there was of fault in this.
8. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process itself.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman