Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inconsistency in the Council’s decisions on planning applications. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process. Also, the loss of public funds, due to a costs award being made against the Council by the Planning Inspector, is a matter which affects all or most of its residents and businesses. This is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was inconsistent when making planning decisions. He says the inconsistency led to an avoidable appeal where costs were awarded against the Council.
2. Mr X says the inconsistency has caused the Council to pay for costs out of public funds to the detriment of him and other council taxpayers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2023, the Council refused a planning application for a large commercial development
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council or committee decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making processes and but for that fault officers or members would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s or committee’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
9. The Council received a planning application to build a commercial development where Mr X lives.
10. Objections were received from members of the public and the Highway Authority.
11. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of all the objections to the application, a history of the site and the relevant local and national planning policies.
12. The minutes of the Committee meeting show the Members debated the application. They decided to refuse the application stating:
• Members were not satisfied with the impact of the proposal on the highway;
• The proposal did not meet current needs; and
• The proposal did not meet the requirements of the Council’s policy in transport infrastructure.
13. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ or the committee’s decision-making processes here to allow us to go behind the decision or to warrant an investigation.
14. The planning applicant appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. It also decided to submit a second almost identical planning application.
15. The Planning Inspector considered the appeal.
16. The planning applicant put in a new, virtually identical application. It also submitted additional information on the impact of the scheme on the highway. The County Highway Authority and the local Police concluded the proposal would not have a severe impact on the local and wider highway network. Following a debate the Committee decided to approve the application.
17. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the second application which is very similar to the first one and highlights inconsistency in its decision making. However, the Planning Officer’s report on the scheme shows it considered all the comments received on the proposal. This includes location opposition and objections received. The report details local and national planning policy and explains why the officer recommended approval.
18. The minutes show the Committee debated the application and heard from speakers for and against the proposal. The Council decided to grant conditional approval for the second application. Again, having followed the correct process I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making process.
19. Following the approval of the second application, the Planning Inspector issued their decision on the original application. They allowed the appeal and awarded costs against the Council.
20. Mr X complains the inconsistency in decision making caused the Council to incur cost awarded against it which must be met from public funds. However, this specific point is a matter which affects all residents and business in the Council’s area and is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning applications; and
• The loss of public funds is a matter which affects all or most of the Council’s residents and is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman