Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council decided to approve a planning application at the pre-planning stage, and the rest of the process focussed on forcing it through despite of opposition from the community. She says the Council has allowed off mains drainage to discharge into a brook which is often dry, breaching Environment Agency requirements. Mrs X wants the entire planning process overhauled.

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
• 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 Mrs X the available on the Council’s website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says the Council pre-determined a planning application and ignored objections and local knowledge when it decided to approve a planning application for a site near her home.
6. We are not an appeal body and cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome.

7. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner to achieve sustainable development.

8. A planning officer produced a report which set out the planning issues, including the objections received. It also included the comments from statutory consultees, who did not object to the application. The report details why the officer recommended the Council should grant planning permission. The minutes of the Council’s planning committee meeting show the committee members considered the report and heard from people who objected to the application and an individual representing the applicant. A debate took place before the committee members voted to grant conditional planning permission.
9. I appreciate Mrs X may disagree with the Council’s decision, but I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how in how it was made.
10. Mrs X says the Council ignored the opposition to the proposal. However, the Council can only consider any planning issues, regardless of the strength of local opposition. The officer report addressed the planning issues raised by local people and other bodies. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council addressed these concerns.
11. Mrs X is seeking an overhaul of the planning process. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the process the Council followed before deciding to grant conditional planning permission. Nor can we achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman