Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application and its decision to allow development on greenfield land. 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, says he has lost all faith in the Council following its decision to allow development on greenfield land. He says its Planning Department is not fit for purpose and alleges it may be corrupt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

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 a decision by the Council’s Planning Committee to grant permission for development at a site on greenfield land, Mr X complained to the Council querying a number of issues related to the application and the Council’s consideration of it. The Council responded under the two stages of its complaints procedure and addressed the points raised by Mr X.
8. Mr X clearly disagrees with the decision taken by the Council, but it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions councils make if they follow the right steps and consider the relevant evidence and information. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision here.
9. Mr X alludes to corruption but such a matter is one for the police and if he has any evidence he can take it directly to that body.
10. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council has not given any evidence to support its decision to grant permission and that it departed from its Local Plan. However, the Council has explained, and it is set out in the minutes of the Committee meeting, that, on balance, members decided the economic and other public benefits outweighed the actual or potential harm caused by the development. Mr X spoke at the Committee meeting and put forward his objections which were considered by the members but they came to a different view. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. The Council has previously told Mr X that it is obliged to consider the application which has been made to it, regardless of whether he considers there would have been better locations for the development.
11. Mr X has referred to an FOI request he has made. If he is dissatisfied with the Council’s response, he can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body best placed to consider such issues.

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