Summary: Mr X complains about inconsistency in a planning decision taken by the Council. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about inconsistency in planning decisions when the Council’s Planning Committee granted permission for a housing development on a site where a previous application had been refused. He says the Council did not follow its own policies and his objections about surface water flooding which affect his property were not considered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council and watched the recording of the relevant Committee meeting.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2017 the Council refused planning permission for a housing development in Mr X’s locale. Its decision to refuse permission was upheld on appeal by the Planning Inspector.
8. The Council received a further application to develop the site and the officer recommendation was for refusal, stressing the importance of the earlier appeal decision. However, the majority of members of the Planning Committee voted to grant permission.
9. Mr X complained about the inconsistency of the two decisions because there had been no material changes to the site. However, while this may be the case, and while the officer recommendation was to refuse, the Committee decided to go against the recommendation and voted to approve. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take and it is not our role to question its merits.
10. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the recent planning decision was taken without a flood risk assessment. However, the issue of flooding was considered and addressed in the officer report and was not included as a reason for recommending refusal. The report noted that the previous application had not been refused on this ground either and officers considered that it could have been deemed unreasonable to refuse the later application on this ground.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault affected the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman