Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of bats when dealing with a planning application for a residential development near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or planning committee’s decision-making processes, nor significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by the matter, to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a piece of open land in a residential area. The Council has granted planning permission for the land to be developed with new houses. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact on bats using the land when dealing with the application.
2. Mr X says he is dismayed that the Council granted the planning permission given it will disturb bats. He wants the Council to add a condition to the permission requiring the developer to do a bat survey.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue 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; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision if there is fault in the decision-making processes followed and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. We cannot replace a council’s or committee’s view with our or someone else’s opinion. So we consider the processes councils and their committees have followed when making their decisions.
7. During the planning application process, the Council considered the ecology report submitted by the applicant. They referred that report and the application to the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU), which provides responses to planning matters which raise ecological issues, including protected species such as bats. The GMEU advised that the ecology report was valid and that there were no protected species on the site. The Council’s planning officers considered whether the planning permission should be refused or require additional conditions relating to the protection of bats using the site. They concluded the application should receive permission and recommended the conditions they considered necessary. Officers were entitled to reach their view informed by the GMEU consultee response they sought and received.
8. Officers did not make the decision to grant the permission here. They referred the application to the planning committee which made the decision to grant permission. The committee’s elected Members were satisfied by the information before them that they should make that decision. Had they not been satisfied, it was open to the committee to vote to refuse the permission or require officers to gather more information about bats, or any other material planning matter, before determining the application. The decision to grant the permission was one the committee was entitled to make.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process, or in the committee’s decision-making process, to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s assessment of the application, including the GMEU consultee response it sought and used, and the committee’s decision. But it is not fault for a council or its committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there were fault by the Council or committee which affected the planning decision, we would not investigate. We recognise Mr X enjoyed the sight of bats over the site from his property and has concerns for their welfare. But the matters complained of here do not cause a sufficient significant personal to him which would justify us investigating.
11. Mr X wants the Council to add a new condition to the planning permission the committee granted, to make the developer do a bat survey. Another condition requiring further action by the applicant cannot be added after a permission has been issued. To add a new planning condition now would require revocation of the permission as granted in 2023. We cannot order councils to revoke permissions or add conditions to issued permissions. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or planning committee’s decision-making processes to warrant an investigation; and
• the matters complained of do not cause Mr X such significant personal injustice to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman