Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s planning policy and its handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about Council publicity for planning applications and its procedures for councillor contact and applications to be brought before its planning committee. He says his comments on a neighbour’s application were ignored or misrepresented and he fears damage will be caused to a tree in his garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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.
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. Following the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension and concerned about the impact this may have for a tree in his garden, Mr X complained to the Council.
8. The Council explained it met the statutory publicity requirements by erecting site notices rather than sending individual letters to residents and it described its procedure when a member is contacted about a planning application.
9. While Mr X may not agree with the procedures the Council uses, I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to review the merits of policies adopted by councils.
10. Mr X and the Council may have different views on the likely impact of the development on the tree but again I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council and it has taken steps to try and resolve his concerns by proposing amendments to mitigate the impact on the tree.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he only saw the site notice because he happened to walk past it. However, he did see it and was able to comment on the application so the Council was aware of his views. Mr X can contact his MP with his views on statutory planning notification requirements and if he has any evidence of corruption he can take this to the police.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman