Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and its decision to grant planning permission did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s process for determining a planning application was biased in favour of the applicant. He believes the application should be independently assessed and the development should be placed on hold until this process is complete.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X believes it was not appropriate for the Council to determine the planning application in question because it had awarded funds through a grant scheme to the applicant. He therefore believes the Council was biased in favour of the proposal and that the decision to grant planning permission was predetermined.
5. But it is part of the Council’s role as local planning authority to determine planning applications and Mr X has provided no actual evidence of bias in the way it reached its decision in this case. Councils frequently determine planning applications for development in which they have some interest, whether that be for local council-funded schools, infrastructure projects, council-owned buildings or the like. Where there are concerns about a council’s objectivity in determining an application the Secretary of State may “call in” the application and determine it themselves and the Council referred Mr X to this process in response to his complaint.
6. We are not planning professionals and have no power to determine applications. We cannot therefore reassess the application, overturn the Council’s decision or place a hold on the development as Mr X would like.
7. We also would not investigate because the decision itself does not cause Mr X significant injustice. The application site is far enough away from his property, and with sufficient vegetation in between, that it will not cause any significant impact on him or his property’s amenity.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the decision to grant planning permission does not cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman