Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its decision to grant planning permission for a nearby property and officers missing off planning conditions from the decision notice. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process to warrant us investigating. The Council’s decision notice fault does not cause significant personal injustice to Mr X justifying an investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a rural main road with a national speed limit. An access road joins the main road near his property. The access road is used by Mr X and the owners of property A which is sited further from the main road. Property A’s owners sought and received planning permission to run a business from the premises. Mr X complains the Council:
1. granted planning permission for the business despite the impact of increased traffic near his property and the access road’s junction with the main road being unsafe;
2. missed off planning conditions controlling the business when it issued the decision notice.
2. Mr X wants the Council to decide the planning application again, taking all information into account. If the permission is granted again, he wants the Council to add the conditions it missed off the first time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X’s core complaint is that the Council granted the planning permission for the business. He considers the access road use by property A will have unacceptable impact on his amenity, and that the junction is unsafe. The Council’s planning officer produced a report to the planning committee about the application. The officer recommended the committee approve the application. The planning committee Members considered these issues at their meeting, taking account of objections received about traffic movements and the safety of the junction, and the formal consultee responses from highways officers. They determined, agreeing with the planning officer’s view, that the proposed business use at property A would not result in such traffic using the access road to be unsafe or cause such amenity impacts to justify them refusing the permission.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s and committee’s decision‑making processes here for us to question the committee’s planning decision and investigate. Members had before them the relevant information about the proposed development and its impacts when deciding to grant the permission, which was a decision they were entitled to make. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the committee’s decision. But it is not fault for Members to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Once the committee made its decision, it was for officers to reflect it accurately in the formal decision notice. The Council accepts this was not done. Officers missed off two of the planning conditions which the committee intended to place on the permission. This was administrative fault.
10. Where there has been fault, we must then consider whether it has caused a significant personal injustice. The Council has explained the planning permission as granted controls the level of use of property A’s business and that they retain enforcement powers over its impacts, despite the conditions not being included. If officers receive reports of the business use being greater than that granted by the permission, they confirm they will have enforcement action options available to them to deal with the matters referred to in the missed-off conditions. The Council’s fault has not resulted in loss of possible action by planning enforcement officers to protect amenity, should the business act outside its permission.
11. Mr X claims injustice from the Council requiring him to monitor the business’s use. But councils do not have the resources to constantly monitor compliance with all planning permissions in their areas. They rely on reports from residents claiming to be affected, who believe the activities at a property breach a planning permission. Councils should then investigate the report and decide what action, if any, they should take. The need for Mr X to report concerns he has about the business’s activities would be the same, even if the fault with the missing planning conditions had not happened. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X stemming from the Council’s fault to justify us investigating.
12. We note Mr X wants the Council to reconsider the planning application and, if it is granted again, add the two missed conditions. This would require the Council to revoke the existing permission. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process to warrant an investigation; and
• the Council’s fault in the issuing of the decision notice with missing conditions does not cause such significant personal injustice to him to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman