Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council mishandled the determination of a planning application for a residential care institute. This is primarily because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled the determination of a planning application for a residential care institute where he lives. In particular, he says the report to the Planning Committee contained false and misleading statements, incomplete consultee data, and unverified claims. Mr X also says communication with residents was dysfunctional, which obstructed participation in the planning process, and significant health and safety risks were ignored. He says the Council failed to adequately address these concerns during the subsequent complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
5. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application, on the Council’s planning website.
• the report to the Planning Committee, the ‘late material’ document circulated prior to the meeting, and the minutes and recording of that meeting.
• the related appeal decision, allowing the removal of the temporary consent condition.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X and other residents are unhappy the Council granted planning permission for this development.
8. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if there is clear evidence of fault in the way a decision was made which, but for that fault, is likely to have led to a different decision or outcome for the complainant.
9. I consider there is insufficient evidence that any fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning application outcome here, so we will not investigate the matter. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Committee Members had the opportunity to visit the application site, so would have been aware of the character of the surrounding area.
• A ‘late material’ document was circulated prior to the Committee meeting, which contained further representations from the applicant, the ‘Designing Out Crime’ officer, and a neighbour, and associated commentary from the case officer.
• Mr X and other residents were able to submit their objections to the proposal, and these were summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
• Residents’ objections to the proposal were also presented orally at the Committee, as well as the concerns of three ward members.
• The report provides a detailed assessment of the impact of the development on surrounding amenity and highway safety, with reference to the related objections from residents.
• Council officers were entitled to provide their professional judgement on the planning merits of the proposal, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusions reached. In that regard, I also note the Planning Inspector was satisfied the permission did not need to be subject to a temporary permission.
• I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that the allegedly misleading/false statements identified by Mr X in the Committee report have affected the planning decision. For example, building control is a separate regulatory function, so matters relating to this would not constitute a material planning consideration when determining the planning application. I also understand the works to the building undertaken before, during and after submission of the application did not require planning permission.
10. And whilst residents may have had safety concerns about the works undertaken in and around the site, I am not persuaded the extent of any personal injustice caused to them is significant enough to warrant us pursuing these aspects of the complaint further.
11. Finally, as we are not investigating the substantive planning issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate Mr X’s associated concerns about poor communication or complaint handling in isolation

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning decision, the health and safety concerns have not caused a significant personal injustice, and it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any concerns about poor complaint handling/communications in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman