Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to treat a planning application as a Non-Material Amendment rather than a new application. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or conclude that a different decision would have been reached.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council was wrong to treat a planning application linked to a development with which he is concerned as a Non-Material Amendment (NMA) and that a new application should have been submitted and determined by the Planning Committee as the original application had been.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that the decision on a planning application for a development in his locale was made on the basis that there would be no import of materials to the site and so a change to import a significant amount of soil should have been treated by the Council as a new planning application rather than an NMA. He said this would have led to it being decided by planning committee instead of officer delegation and refused.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained why it had treated the application as an NMA. It said it had sought advice and was satisfied its approach had been legally sound and that it would not be revoking the permission granted.
8. 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. While Mr X may not agree with the Council’s decision on the application, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
9. Moreover, while Mr X may be convinced that had the application come before the planning committee it would have been refused, we cannot conclude this would have been the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or conclude that a different planning decision would have been reached.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman