Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council made its decision. Nor will we investigate how the Council considered its duties as a statutory consultee. Any fault there may have been here has not caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained because he believed the Council planning case officer was inconsistent in how they considered the harmful impact of a proposed development, on Green Belt land.
2. In addition, Mr X said the Council’s assessment of important aspects, that informed a case officer’s report was also flawed, because there was evidence of bias in the assessments. Mr X now believes these flawed assessments affected the outcome at a planning committee meeting, which then approved the application.
3. Mr X said the development will affect his amenity because of noise and light pollution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. We 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. 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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s planning website.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider the impact, including harm, that a proposed development would have on Green Belt land. He said the case officer was inconsistent in how they considered this.
9. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
10. Before we begin our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
11. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide not to investigate.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint here because it is unlikely we would find fault. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not merely to facilitate the decision, but to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
13. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

14. The case officer report shows it highlighted the key issues within the application as affected by Green Belt land considerations, including openness and ‘very special circumstances’. In addition, the Council’s planning website shows the Planning Committee had access to a report submitted to it by residents and therefore would have had the opportunity to consider it when they approved the application.
15. Mr X was also dissatisfied with the nature of comments made by Council officers in response to statutory consultation toward the planning application. Mr X said he believed this meant the planning committee will likely have placed more weight on expert evidence provided by the applicant than those submitted through a resident group, who were opposing parts of the planning application.
16. In so far as it affects Mr X’s complaint, the case officer report highlighted the various arguments relating to these consultations, including the availability of other reports available to the Planning Committee, therefore it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s overall actions here.
17. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint about how its officers responded as consultees and said this should not have happened. It also said it would take steps to address this in future. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. This is because the case officer report dealt with these matters and drew attention to counter views and there is therefore no evidence any fault there may have been here has caused any injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council considered the planning application and any fault there may have been in parts of its consultation has not caused an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman