Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation, and because the complainant has not suffered any personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has wrongly granted planning permission to demolish a disused bus shelter and replace it with a food kiosk. He says the land is part of the public highway and is concerned the development will adversely impact public use of the area. He does not feel the Council has properly consulted the Highways Officer and does not feel his concerns have been properly considered in the planning officer’s report.

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 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, the Council, and the planning documents.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council approved the planning application for the kiosk in 2024. I have reviewed the planning documents and can see it notified neighbouring properties of the application, displayed a site notice, and published a press advertisement as part of the consultation process. Mr X made representations, stating the land is a public highway, and raised concerns about the potential impact of the kiosk on public access to the area. He specifically highlighted issues related to the proposed bin store for the kiosk, and the possibility of customers obstructing disabled parking spaces in the area.
7. Mr X questions why the Council’s Highways Officer made no objections to the proposal. However, the Highways team considered the impact of the kiosk and decided the application would not have a detrimental impact on highways, and carried out a search to confirm no part of the site sits within the public highway.
8. I have reviewed the planning documents and am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report considers the impact on the area, including Mr X’s concerns about the bin store and access to disabled parking spaces. The officer used their professional judgement and decided there was no reasonable basis for rejection. I understand Mr X disagrees with this decision, but the Council is entitled to use its professional judgement to approve the application. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it made its decision, or in the way it carried out its consultation process, we cannot challenge its decision.
9. It is also the case Mr X has not suffered any significant personal injustice as a result of the planning application being approved.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes, and he has not suffered significant injustice which warrants us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman