Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of public comments on a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council ignored the public consultation responses on a planning application, instead relying solely on statutory consultee responses. He also says the Council failed to adequately respond to his associated complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We can 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)
4. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X, and our Assessment Code.
6. I also considered information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting, available in the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X may be unhappy that the Council granted planning permission for a development which he thinks will affect his local area. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even though a complainant may disagree with it.
8. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless is it founded upon valid material planning reasons. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material consideration in determining a planning application. The Ombudsman cannot question the professional judgement of officers on those issues, even if the complainant disagrees with that judgement.
• It is normal practice for objections and supporting comments to be summarised in the Council’s report on a planning application. Here, in particular, the Committee report highlighted concerns about a lack of on-site parking, an increase in on-street parking, and the detrimental impact on the amenity and safety of local residents and passing traffic. The full comments were also available to view on the Council’s planning portal.
• I understand the Highway Authority requested additional information and clarification about the proposal during the determination process, and its final comments state it had no objections, subject to securing a legal agreement and the use of certain conditions. A condition has been imposed requiring the submission of a parking management plan.
• The Committee report also explains in some detail why the proposed parking provision is deemed to be acceptable.
9. As we have decided not to investigate the substantive issue being complained about, we will not normally pursue associated issues about the Council’s complaints process separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, and we will not look at his associated concerns about the complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman