Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the approval of a planning application near his home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the approval of an extension to a property near his own home. He says the Council failed to properly consider his objections and that submissions by the local parish council were subject to personal interests and inconsistent procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X objected to a planning application to extend a property near his home. He says it did not properly consider highway and parking issues and that the setting of the site would be affected. He also made allegations about the integrity of the parish council and inconsistency because his own application for an extension had been refused in previous years.
7. Mr X had an opportunity to object to the proposals and is objections were noted in the planning officer’s report. The highway issues were addressed by the County Council highway authority and it had no objections. The parish council also did not object in its role as a consultee. The Council advised Mr X that it is required to consider all applications on their own merits and this development was not identical to his previous application.
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. In this case there is no evidence that the application procedure was flawed. Mr X’s objections were considered but this does not mean they would affect the final decision.
9. Parish councils are consultees in local planning matters, but they do not have a part in the voting process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the internal functions of parish and town councils because they are outside our jurisdiction. If Mr X felt his own application had been refused unreasonably, he could have submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman