Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications at a site close to Ms X’s home. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains Council planning officers deliberately gave misleading information and refused to amend incorrect information to the benefit the applicant despite this being brought to their attention on numerous occasions.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X objected to planning applications for development at a site close to her home. The applications were decided by the Planning Committee which rejected the officer recommendation to approve the applications and instead refused them.
7. Ms X complained to the Council about its handling of the applications, particularly in relation to highways and parking issues and the proximity of the proposed development to her property.
8. The Council acknowledged and partially upheld her complaint in relation to the disparity between the officer report and the presentation to the Committee concerning the distance between Ms X’s home and the proposed property. However, it said that this confusion was overcome by the presentation which did not leave members unclear or confused about the impact of the development. It did not uphold her other concerns and explained that these were essentially a difference of opinion on the issues. It found no evidence to support Ms X’s claims that officers had acted deliberately to secure approval for the applicant.
9. 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. While Ms X may disagree with the views taken by officers in relation to the applications at the site in question, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the outcome.
10. The Council acknowledged some confusion in the officer report about distances between Ms X’s property and the proposed property but noted no harm had been caused as a result and it apologised for any stress caused to her and her family. We do not investigate every complaint we receive, and we will not investigate where an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman