Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to accept information on a planning application which he considers is unfit for purpose. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to accept the information. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council accepted evidence required for an outline planning permission that is unfit for purpose.
2. He wants an external body to consider whether the information provided by the developer is acceptable.

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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council accepted information to discharge conditions which was not fit for purpose.
7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the way the organisation made its decision. If we consider it followed the correct process, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to accept the reserved matters planning application. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the information provided was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision where there is no evidence of fault.
9. Also, Mr X wants some external body to decide whether the information provided by the developer is acceptable. The Council as the Local Planning Authority is the body charged with managing the planning process. The Ombudsman cannot require the Council to delegate this role to a third party.
10. Mr X also says the Council exceeded the time specified in its complaints procedure when responding to him. We consider 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

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the information provided by the developer. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman