Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a temporary marquee near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider a planning application for a temporary, community centre marquee near to where he lives. Mr X says the development will result in a significant increase in traffic, parking problems, and noise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. In that regard, we can 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)
5. And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s planning website.
• The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The time restriction, detailed in paragraph 5 above, would apply to any parts of the complaint about the Council granting planning permission in 2006 and 2014 for similar developments at the site. I see no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner if he was concerned about these earlier permissions, so we will not investigate them now.
8. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy that the Council granted planning permission again in 2023 for a temporary structure.
9. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council publicised the application in accordance with statutory requirements and its SCI.
• The Council’s Highways and Environmental Health teams were consulted on the application and raised no objections.
• The objections of the Parish Council and residents are summarised in the officer’s report.
• The report goes on to consider the relevant material planning considerations, including noise and parking.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman