Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making relating to the approval of a planning application. It is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council made its decisions. Nor will we investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not fully respond to his request for information. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal to a tribunal about this and it would be reasonable for him to use that alternative remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy with several aspects of the way the Council handled a planning application. He said:
1. The decision was undemocratic and should have been decided by a planning committee;
2. it did not properly consider the local impact including noise and traffic, and;
3. it failed to properly respond to a request for information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the documents about this application on the Council’s planning website.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X made a complaint, saying he, and other residents, had been affected by the Council’s decision to approve an application for a nearby development. He said he was unhappy with several aspects of how the Council dealt with the application, including that it made a delegated decision, where it should have referred the decision to its planning committee.
9. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint (a). The Council’s scheme of delegation allows for the Council to take a delegated decision having consulted with the relevant cabinet member and the evidence shows it did so. Because this decision was taken in line with its policy, it is unlikely we would find fault. In any case, even if there was fault here, we could not say what decision the committee may have made, and so, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating here.
10. Mr X was also dissatisfied with how the case officer considered the impact on the local area, which he highlighted as being an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). He also said this included the impact of traffic, noise and nuisance.
11. I have considered the planning case officer report and note it included:
• A description of the proposal and site;
• A summary of relevant planning history;
• Comments from objectors and other consultees;
• Relevant planning policy and guidance including those impacting on AONB’s;
• An appraisal of the main planning considerations, including impact on amenity and highway safety; and
• The officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to planning conditions.
12. 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. Because the Council have compiled such a report, I am satisfied it has taken proper account of the key material planning considerations and considered the matters raised by the objections it had noted.
13. 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 in the process and in the absence of any obvious flaw we cannot criticise a decision.
14. Given the Council’s actions here, it is unlikely we would find fault in how it decided to approve the application. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint (b).
15. Mr X was also unhappy the Council delayed and then did not fully respond to a request for information under freedom of information (FOI) request. We will not consider this part of Mr X’s complaint (c). This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) can consider this part of his complaint, and if need be, Mr X can escalate the ICO’s decision to the Tribunal. Because the tribunal considers these matters, it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use this right.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and he has an alternative remedy to address parts of his complaint as they affect his information rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman