Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider a planning application. He believes the Council did not take account of objections to the application, an officer failed to justify the withdrawal of their objection to the proposal and the planning officer’s report was flawed and misleading. He also complains the planning committee should have deferred the application to another meeting rather than voting to grant planning permission.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. We are 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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
5. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision but I have seen no basis for us to question it. The officer was entitled to withdraw their objection and provided sufficient explanation as to why they had changed their view. It was then for the planning officer to assess the proposal and recommend whether to grant planning permission or not and this is what they did. The report summarised the objections, provided the full responses from the officer and the clarification provided by the applicant and recommended the Council granted planning permission. It is not for us to say the Council should have given greater weight to the objections or to question the officer’s recommendation.
6. It was then the committee’s role to decide whether to grant planning permission, refuse it or defer the application for consideration at a future meeting. The committee decided there was sufficient information to make a decision and voted to grant planning permission. While Mr X believes the committee should have deferred the application this does not show fault by the Council.
7. Mr X claims the applicant provided inaccurate information to the Council as part of the application process but the Council had to make the best decision it could on the information available at the time. Mr X believes the Council should revoke the planning permission but this is not an outcome we can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman