Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reached its decision on a planning application near Mr X’s home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has granted planning permission for development near his home without properly considering the impact on his property. Mr X says the development will case unacceptable levels of noise and smells. He says the applicant also submitted false and defamatory information as part of the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for development near Mr X’s home. The Council’s officer report demonstrates the Council has considered Mr X’s objections and the impact of the development on his home. The Council has also visited the site to witness the development in operation.
7. Mr X believes the Council has not applied its policies correctly. However, we cannot criticise the Council’s decision because Mr X has interpreted the policies differently to the Council. The Council’s officer report references relevant policies and has considered these against the submitted plans. Therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission.
8. Mr X says the Council’s officer report was produced before the deadline for comments was closed. There is no fault in the report being prepared ahead of time so long as any subsequent comments received before the deadline closes are properly considered. The Council’s officer report summarises the comments received and therefore there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.
9. Mr X say the Council’s Environmental Health team has visited the site and says smells may constitute a nuisance. The Environmental Health team work to different legislation than the Council’s Planning department. Therefore it does not follow that there is evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission just because the Environmental Health team are considering taking action.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman