Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to a planning application in the village where the complainant lives. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered significant, personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs P, complains a Planning Officer is biased in favour of the applicant for two planning applications for development of new homes where she lives.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs P and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In her complaint to the Council, Mrs P raises concerns about two specific planning applications.
6. The first application is to vary a condition placed on a planning permission granted by the Planning Inspector. The original condition required a 3-metre wide path for use by pedestrians and cyclists. The developer applied to vary the condition to allow for a narrower path for pedestrian use only (cycles can be wheeled along the path, but not ridden).
7. The Council contacted the relevant statutory consultees, including the highway authority. Members of the public, including Mrs P, objected to the application.
8. The Council’s Planning Committee considered the application. A spokesperson for the developer spoke in support of the application. Mrs P spoke to the Committee against the application.
9. The minutes show that following a debate, the Committee voted to approve the application to vary the condition.
10. We cannot by law question the merits of a decision made without fault. From the evidence I have seen the Council has followed the process we expect to see when determining a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation on this point.
11. The second application which Mrs P complained about is for the approval of all reserved matters from the original outline application. This application is pending at the time of writing this decision.
12. We consider complaints where the complainant has suffered a significant, personal injustice as a direct result of the Council’s actions. I consider any injustice to Mrs P is, at present, speculative. This is because the application has not yet been approved. While Mrs P has found dealing with the Council stressful, I am therefore not satisfied that she has suffered serious loss, harm or distress and that there is an injustice for us to remedy.
13. Finally, Mrs P complains the Council has failed to follow its complaints procedure. 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

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs P’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Nor do we consider Mrs P has suffered significant, personal injustice as a direct result of the Council’s involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman