Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of an application to vary several conditions attached to a grant of planning permission. He says the Council did not act professionally or impartially.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint sets out six examples of what he considers to be evidence of flaws in the way the Council handled the planning application. He says the Council:
• Failed to identify that the applicant intended further development which was not part of the application.
• Failed to carry out a site visit to his property and those of his neighbours, who are affected by the proposal.
• Failed to produce a professional and impartial report on the proposal.
• Failed to provide a report which properly explained the impact of the proposal.
• Failed to provide a report to enable the planning committee to make an informed choice.
• Failed to treat his complaint seriously.
6. It is important to note that the application in this case sought to vary several planning conditions but the Council’s planning committee, on the recommendation of the planning officer, agreed to vary only two.
7. Neither variation allowed for the further development referred to by Mr X and the Council has in any event explained that the applicant would not need planning permission for it anyway. The Council was also under no obligation to carry out a site visit to Mr X’s property or those of his neighbours. We could not therefore find fault by the Council on these issues.
8. While Mr X claims the Council did not act professionally or impartially I have seen no evidence to show this was the case. The planning officer’s report set out the details of the proposals and the various material considerations involved. They ultimately recommended the committee approve the variations referred to at Paragraph 6 and set out their reasons but this is not evidence of bias or lack of professionalism; it is simply part of the process. The committee was free to make its own decision and could have gone against the recommendation if it had found good reasons to do so. It did not and the Council’s decision was one it was entitled to make.
9. 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. It is clear Mr X disagrees with the decision but I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it was reached for us to question it.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman