Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to agree a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council made its decision to agree a planning application for a housing development. He said the Council overlooked important concerns and believes the planning report misled the planning committee. He said the decision to approve the development is a risk to the safety of road users.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about the decision of the Council to agree the planning application for a housing development. He said the Council had not considered concerns about highway safety. However, the planning officer report shows it consulted with the highways authority who did not raise any objections.
7. Mr X complained the Council had not considered the planning proposals against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). But the recommendations in the planning officer report refers to the NPPF and sets out how it considered these policies in its decisions and recommendations., Significantly the planning committee also had access to all previous reports together with objections and other consultee comments.
8. Mr X said the Chair of the planning committee holds other roles in the Council and this could lead to the committee receiving misleading information. The Council explained it had no concern about the role of the Chair or the information provided and explained its reasons for this.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Ombudsman is not a planning appeal body and we cannot question this decision unless there was fault in the process. There is not sufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman