Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application for a commercial property it owns in his village.
2. He wants the Council to reconsider the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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. A Council planning officer prepared a report on the planning proposal for the Council’s planning committee to consider.
7. The courts made it clear that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the council and the applicant) who are well experienced of the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key material issues.
8. Councils will grant permission where they consider proposals are in line with relevant planning policies and they find no planning reasons of sufficient weight to justify refusal.
9. In this case the report included a summary of the objections received and the reasons why the officer recommended approval.
10. The committee minutes show members of the public (including Mr X), a representative of the parish council and a ward councillor spoke in objection to the application.
11. Following presentation of the report and the public speakers, the committee debated the application. They asked questions and information was provided by the planning officer and an environmental health officer.
12. Having considered the application the committee decided to approve the application.
13. I understand Mr X believes the Council failed to carry out due diligence. However, I am satisfied the planning committee had the opportunity to hear from those who object to the application and from those who could answer Member’s questions. If the committee was not satisfied it understood the proposal or were uncertain of any information it could have decided to defer the application. It did not. I have seen no evidence to show the planning committee did not understand the proposal before voting to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also we cannot require the Council to reconsider the planning application so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman