Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of a planning application for a development on open space near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council granting planning permission for a development on an area of open space near her home, particularly in relation to the consideration of alternative sites and the precedent set for development on the remaining open space in the future.
2. Miss X says building on the site will reduce the open space available to residents for social and recreational uses, and potentially impact on the long-term health and welfare of the community

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. In relation to the first bullet point above, 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 in relation to the second and third bullet points, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• Information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy the Council approved the planning application.
8. 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 process an organisation followed to make its decision, and consider whether any fault in that process is likely to have affected the planning outcome or caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.
9. I consider there is not enough evidence to conclude that any fault by the Council is likely to have affected the planning outcome or caused Miss X a significant injustice, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Committee report summarises the objections to the proposal, and an objector also spoke at the Committee meeting, so Members were aware of residents’ concerns before reaching their decision.
• the Council says a sequential assessment of alternative sites was not actually a requirement for this type of application, so the proposal had to be determined on its own planning merits. Nevertheless, the minutes of the meeting show the site selection was the subject of discussion by Members.
• the case officer, and other consultees, are entitled to reach their own professional judgements/recommendation on the proposal/supporting documents, even if Miss X disagrees with the view they reached. The Committee report presents the key issues (including those identified by Miss X), and it was for the Committee Members to decide the weight to be given to the material planning considerations in determining the application.
• while I understand why Miss X might be concerned about the future of the remaining area of open space, the Ombudsman cannot consider a speculative injustice about something that has not happened yet. Any proposal for development on the remainder of the site would need to be considered on its own merits.
10. Finally, we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X is seeking, as we cannot overrule the Council’s decision on the application or direct it to reconsider the application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to conclude that fault by the Council has caused her a significant personal injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman