Telford & Wrekin Council (22 010 620)
Category : Planning > Planning applications
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 29 Nov 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council misled him about the position of a proposed development near his house. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- Mr X complains that the Council misled him about the position of a proposed development near his house.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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:
- 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
- The complainant now commented on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.
My assessment
- A planning application for a container on a nearby playing field was submitted to the Council in November 2021. The site was close to Mr X’s back garden and he objected arguing that the position of the container would worsen highway and pedestrian access.
- The planning application showed the precise position of the container. The Planning Officer argued that the development could be screened by proposed planting and that the container would not lead to any increased access to the site.
- I am satisfied that the planning application was properly identified (by map) and that the Planning Officer took into account Mr X’s objections. In the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman could not question the merit of that decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman