Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to approve a planning application or its investigation of the complaint. Further investigation will not add to that carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Ms D, represents a resident’s association. She complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a new house in the road where she lives. She says the Council:
• Misled the planning committee about destruction of a wildlife habitat and badger sett
• Ignored residents’ comments and was biased against them
• Failed to follow the correct process
• Failed to seek comments from all consultees; and
• Issued an unlawful planning permission

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms D and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Historically, the Council has refused three planning applications to build a new property in the road where the residents live.
6. The Council received a new application in January. This time the Planning Committee approved the application.
7. The residents complained about the actions and behaviour of Councillors and Officers during the processing of the application.
8. The Council says all its senior planning officers had been involved with the planning application. Therefore, it engaged an independent planning consultant to investigate the complaint and produce a report.
9. The consultant interviewed the Officers & visited the site. He reviewed all the planning documents and produced a report. He arranged for an independent ecologist to also review the information.
10. The Independent consultant’s report concluded that the Officer’s report to the Planning Committee was of a high standard. He confirmed the application was progressed correctly. He agreed Officers advised the committee correctly and the Committee properly arrived at the decision. However, he made some recommendations including the application to be reconsidered by the Planning Committee. This is because the ecological survey was provided by the developer but had not been made available to the public.
11. Considering the investigation findings, a new report was presented to the Planning Committee. The ecologist attended the meeting and the resident’s representative addressed the Members. The Council reconfirmed its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because I do not consider that anything further can be achieved by an investigation. The Council arranged for an independent planning expert to look at the processing of the application. This also included consideration of the ecological information by an independent ecologist. The Council reconsidered the application following receipt of the investigators report.
13. Ms D and her neighbours have been able to voice their objections at the original Committee and the one resulting from the independent planning consultant’s investigation and report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman