Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development at a site near his home. 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 the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for development at a site near his home which involves use of a single-track access lane. He says he will be caused disruption by the building works and that there are health and safety issues over the use of the lane.

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 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)
3. 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
• 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’s representative, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s representative complained to the Council about its decision to grant planning permission for a development at a site near Mr X’s property which will lead to an increase in use of a single-track access lane and to disruption while the proposed works take place. He also complained the decision had not been taken by the Planning Committee.
8. In response, the Council explained the decision had been taken under delegated powers, at not by Committee, in accordance with its normal procedures and that members of the public had been given the opportunity to comment on the application beforehand. It said the lane was already used by other properties and that while there would likely be an increase in use of it, any impact would not be significant and would not affect the public highway nearby.
9. While I understand Mr X may not agree with the decision taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as an appeal body. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision here.
10. Moreover, the use of the track does not impact Mr X to any significant degree and while there will be some disruption when the building works take place, this is not a reason for refusing planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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