Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before deciding to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the use of a photo taken in 2009 misled the Planning Committee. And the Council:
• failed to consider evidence of illegal parking
• failed to consider the objections from the community; and
• failed to follow its complaints procedure
2. He wants the Council to withdraw the planning permission and for the Planning Committee to reconsider the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received a planning application for a glazed canopy to form a new outdoor seating area to an existing hotel/restaurant/bar in Mr B’s Road.
8. Mr B and several other residents objected to the proposal. The objections included (but we not limited to)
• a lack of parking
• impact from noise and lighting
• comments about licensing
9. When considering complaints about how a council has considered a planning application, we look for evidence that it followed a proper process before making a decision. We expect to see evidence that the Council has identified the material planning considerations raised by the application and these have taken into account. The weight the Council gives to them is a matter for its judgement. We will not come to our own view on the merits of the planning application.
10. The Council’s Planning Officer’s report shows they considered the Council’s Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. They also considered and commented on the objections the Council received, including those made by Mr B.
11. The report notes the application site does not have any parking. And that an area to the front of the site had formally been used for limited parking but was now used for outdoor seating. The proposed scheme would not remove any available parking. The roads around the site are subject to permit parking restrictions which will limit inappropriate parking from patrons. The Council did not receive any objections from the highways department.
12. The Officer concluded the proposed scheme of a canopy over an outdoor seating area would not intensify parking demand.
13. The report also confirms that no external lighting is included in the application. And the proposed planning conditions to restrict use of the seating area to not before 9am or after 110pm, will align with existing licensing conditions.
14. The Officer recommended the application for approval.
15. The Planning Committee considered the application. Mr B spoke to the Committee for himself and other objectors. From the details in the Planning Officer’s report and the information about the application, which is on the Council’s website, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application. It made a decision it was entitled to make, which I cannot therefore criticise.
16. Mr B also complains the Council delayed in sending him the final response to his complaint. We do not consider it is a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue. We do not consider there can be enough injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman