Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was made, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council approved a planning application on the basis of inaccurate and misleading information, particularly in relation to the access to the site. He also says the decision is inconsistent with the outcome of other planning applications in the area, and the development is unsustainable. Mr X thinks the Council should reconsider its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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. So, we do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• the complaint correspondence between Mr X and the Council.
• The Committee report, the recording of the Committee meeting, and the slides presented to the Committee.
• Information about the planning application on the Council’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X, and other residents, disagree with the Council’s decision on the planning application. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made, to check whether there was fault in the decision‑making process.
6. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation here. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Committee Members visited the site, so they would have been aware of its character/appearance and that of the surrounding area/roads.
• The Committee report summarises residents’ objections to the proposal.
• The report assesses the proposal in some detail under the following headings, Principle of Development, Character and Appearance, Living Conditions, Highway Safety and Parking Provision, Ecology, Trees, Foul and Surface Water Drainage, and Other Matters, and the report then concludes with a summary of the balance of the material planning considerations.
• Photographs and plans of the site and surrounding area were shown to Members of the Committee, and the presenting officer provided an explanation of these.
• Mr X, the Parish Council and Ward Member were able to present their objections at the meeting, including their concerns about the access arrangement and sustainability of the proposed development.
• The questions asked by Members demonstrates they were aware of the potential highway issues associated with the proposal.
• Each planning application must be determined on its own merits, taking into account the particular planning polices which are relevant to the individual proposal, and any other material planning considerations.
7. The Ombudsman also has no power to direct the Council to reconsider its decision, so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the planning decision was taken, and we cannot achieve the desired outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman