Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a waste storage compound. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has affected the outcome of the planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s handling of a planning application for a waste storage compound has been inadequate. In particular, he says:
• The application and planning documents contained incorrect and inaccurate information.
• The case officer did not visit the site, despite the Council previously saying one had taken place.
• The Council should have listened to requests from residents and its Environmental Health team to move the compound away from residential properties.
• The compound does not meet government guidelines for such areas.
2. Mr X also says the Council refused to escalate his complaint to Stage 3 of its complaint process.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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)
5. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and information about the planning application on the Council’s planning website.
7. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X does not want the waste storage compound near his property. But the Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body. Rather, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We cannot question the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was made. If we find fault or errors in the way an application was assessed, we then consider whether this is likely to have affected the application outcome.
9. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council handled the application that is likely to have affected the outcome. In reaching this view I am particularly mindful that
• The Council explains it is the fence around the waste bins which requires planning permission, and not the positioning of the bins themselves. So, the applicant was able to place the bins in this location without having to obtain planning permission. As such, the errors on the application form are unlikely to have affected how the Council assessed the planning merits of the fence.
• The Council had to determine the proposal presented by the applicant, even if residents felt there were more preferable locations for the waste bins.
• Mr X was aware of the application and was able to submit his objections. These, and those from other residents, are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• Impact on property values is not something the Council can consider when determining a planning application.
• There is no statutory requirement to conduct a site visit for a planning application and the Council says a Planning Enforcement Officer had visited the site prior to the application being submitted. Photographs of the compound were also submitted by the applicant and Mr X.
• Although the Council accepts it should have consulted its Tree Service, the manager of that department has confirmed the development is unlikely to have an impact on nearby trees.
• Government guidance advises restrictions should not be imposed on planning applications which duplicate a requirement for compliance with other regulatory regimes.
10. As the outcome is likely to have been the same but for the alleged and acknowledged faults by the Council, I find Mr X has not suffered an injustice as a result of the way the application was handled.
11. Finally, and with reference to paragraph 5 above, as the Ombudsman is not investigating the substantive part of the complaint about the application, we will not consider Mr X’s concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest that fault has affected the application outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman