Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development close to a property Mr X owns. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development close to a property he owns and for which planning permission was granted. He says proper consideration was not given to relevant documents by officers and the Planning Committee and he is left wondering whether permission would have been granted if they had.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information.
7. Mr X says he is not complaining about the decision itself but about the incomplete preparation of planning officers’ reports and the ineffective handling of his complaint. He believes documents he has referred to were either not read or not properly considered but acknowledges it cannot be concluded that if they had been officers would have come to a different view or that the outcome on the application would have been different.
8. Mr X spoke at the Committee meeting and had the opportunity to make known his objections to the proposal. The Council responded to his complaint and referred to the policies considered by officers.
9. While Mr X says his complaint is not about the decision, essentially this is where he concerns lie and there is no evidence that fault affected the decision so that an investigation is warranted.
10. Moreover, while Mr X owns a property close to the development site, his injustice is limited. As he does not live by the site, he would not be affected by any increase in traffic and demand for parking.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman