Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to take his objections into account when deciding an application for planning permission. He says the Council failed to properly consider the ecological impact of the development and claims the decision was based on inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant planning considerations. He would like the Council to re-evaluate the application and replace the planning officer who dealt with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council granted planning permission for development on Mr X’s road in 2022. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of the application and believes the decision is flawed.
5. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint and decided to refer the matter to an independent planning consultant to investigate and produce a report.
6. The consultant interviewed the Officers & visited the site. They reviewed all the planning documents and produced a report. They arranged for an independent ecologist to also review the information.
7. The Independent consultant’s report concluded that the Officer’s report to the planning committee was of a high standard. They confirmed the application was progressed correctly, that officers advised the committee correctly and the committee properly arrived at its decision to grant planning permission. However, the consultant raised several minor points concerning the process the Council followed.
8. The Council sought to address these issues by referring the matter back to the planning committee with a revised report. It also invited the Council’s ecologist to attend the meeting and allowed a representative of the residents affected by the proposal to address the members of the committee.
9. Having re-considered the proposal the Council decided it was acceptable and confirmed its decision to grant planning permission.
10. We will not investigate this matter further

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision. It is also unlikely further investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. The process has already been reviewed by an independent third party and the application has been reconsidered by the Council’s planning committee. The residents have been able to voice their objections to the proposal at both committee meetings and we cannot say the Council must revoke the planning permission and reconsider the matter for a third time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman