Summary: Ms X complains about the process followed and the decision made by the Council in connection with a planning application with which she disagrees. 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 Ms X, says the Council is at fault in the way it dealt with and decided a planning application for a development which she says will negatively affect her and her family.

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 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received a planning application for a development with which Ms X disagrees. She objected to the application and spoke in person to members at the Planning Committee which determined the application.
8. Following the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development, Ms X complained to the Council, raising issues that had been addressed by the officer report. While it acknowledged Ms X had different views on the application, it found no fault with the decision-making process or how a named officer she had complained about had treated her.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. It is clear Ms X feels strongly about the development and the impact she believes it will have. However, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council.
10. In responding to my draft decision Ms X said she did not feel she had been able to properly present her objections at the Committee meeting due to issues including the acoustics in the room, the lack of time given to speak, that no reasonable adjustments were made for her disabilities and that a printed version of her objections had not been given to members as she had understood they would be. Ms X says she saw no evidence members had understood the information presented to them. However, members heard Ms X, would have seen her earlier written objections and had had the opportunity to ask her questions. Had they been unable to hear her properly or had wanted further information or clarification in relation to what she had said or what was in the officer report they could have asked for it.
11. Ms X says the Council did not address the further complaint and issues she raised after receiving the Council’s Stage 1 and 2 responses but in the main these relate to matters considered as part of the planning application process and by members of the Committee. Ms X says the correct guidance regarding footpaths and pedestrian access was not followed. However, guidance is just that and even if reference had been made to the wrong guidance, an investigation could not conclude but for that a different outcome would have resulted.
12. Ms X says she does not have confidence that the application and her concerns about it were given due consideration but this goes to the issue of the merits of the decision which it is not our role to question.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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