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 by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a report to its committee as part of the committee’s determination of a planning application. He believes that had the report been available to the committee, the committee would have refused the application rather than approving it. He wants the Council to review the decision and revoke the planning permission granted.

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)
3. 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Prior to submitting their application to the Council the applicant engaged the Council’s ‘pre-application advice’ service, which sought views on the proposal and whether it complied with local and national policies and guidance. As part of this process UNESCO commissioned a report to consider the impact of the proposal on the area’s status as a World Heritage status. The report warned that proceeding with the development could affect the area’s status and made several specific comments about the proposal.
7. Mr X believes the report should have been provided to the committee which determined the application and that the Council should have refused the application. But the Council has explained that the report commented on the proposal put to it at pre-application stage and this was not the same as the proposal for which it granted planning permission. The report was not therefore directly relevant to the planning application and although the Council consulted the body which created it, they did not comment on the revised proposal.
8. The Council’s decision not to include the report in the documents presented to the committee is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no basis for us to question it.
9. I have also seen no evidence to show the Council’s decision caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X’s property is some distance from the application site and although the Council has granted planning permission, UNESCO has not changed the area’s World Heritage status. Any concern that it may do in the future is entirely speculative at this point and is not something we can provide a remedy for. We also cannot force the Council to review or change its decision to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman