Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development which negatively impacts Mr X’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to consider the impact of the proposed development on his property, did not follow the Council’s planning policies laid out in the Local Plan and that members of the Planning Committee were misled.

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 Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about a number of issues concerning its consideration of a planning application for a development which impacts negatively on his property.
7. The Council addressed the issues raised by Mr X but did not uphold his complaint. It did recommend that officers give consideration to ensuring members of the public registered to speak on a planning application are provided with updates and amendments and given the opportunity to amend their representations to reflect any changes prior to speaking. However, it found the amendments were modest with no requirement to re-consult and that even if Mr X had amended his representation to reflect the changes, the outcome would not have been different.
8. While Mr X is clearly disappointed with the decision taken by the Council on the application, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the decision or that even if Mr X had amended his representation in speaking to the Committee the outcome would have been different.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman