Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site near her property, and how it responded to her complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X to justify an investigation. We also cannot achieve the key outcomes she seeks. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next to a site with commercial buildings. The Council received and rejected an application to build industrial units on the site. The applicant altered their plans and submitted a second application which received planning permission from the Council. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to apply its policies when deciding the second application;
2. failed to take proper account of the impact the development will have on the amenity of her and her neighbours’ properties;
3. accepted the applicant’s noise report despite it not considering the impact of the potential industrial uses for the development;
4. changed its view on the effectiveness of an acoustic fence on reducing noise from the site;
5. gave too much weight to the benefits of employment and industrial premises brought by the development;
6. failed to put the application to the planning committee;
7. delayed in dealing with her complaints.
2. Mrs X says the matter has been devastating for her and her neighbours. She says they are stressed and depressed. Mrs X says she dreads the potential noise from general industrial uses at the bottom of the gardens 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and loss of privacy and security. She feels the Council has failed her and other residents.
3. Mrs X wants the development stopped or further constrained, a full investigation, and the Council to be more accountable and not to ignore residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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

6. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents, maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
8. Mrs X’s complaint raises numerous concerns about the Council’s planning process. The key issue is officers’ assessment of the potential impacts of the development proposed in the second application due to the planning uses available to the businesses which use units at the site. The Council considered the second application and compared it to the previously refused one. Officers took the view that the applicant’s changes to the development, including its relationship with existing properties, overcame the reasons for refusal on the first application. Mrs X disagrees. She considers the changes will make the noise issue worse for her and her neighbours’ properties and still has privacy and security concerns.
9. The officer’s planning report shows the Council took account of its relevant policies when making its decision. This included following its policy on whether the application should be determined by officers or at the planning committee. Officers considered whether the amended application would cause such amenity impacts on existing properties to warrant refusing it permission. They took account of the applicant’s noise report as well as making their own assessments of the amenity issues, some of which were also raised by Mrs X and other residents. Officers determined the amenity effects of the proposed planning uses would be sufficiently reduced by the changes and the installation of the acoustic fence, which had also formed part of the first application. The benefits of employment and industrial use premises in the area were weighed in the balance during the process.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here for us to go behind the Council officers’ professional judgement decision or to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the officers’ assessments, conclusions and the weight given to various aspects of the evidence and application when reaching their decision to grant the second permission. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there had been fault by the Council here, we will not investigate. Mrs X’s key injustice is her upset, anxiety and distress due to her concern that future industrial uses on the site will affect the amenity of her property. We recognise Mrs X has this concern about what may happen on the site. But the development is yet to be built, so there are no industrial businesses operating. We cannot provide remedies for impacts which have not happened. We understand Mrs X feels she and other residents have been let down by the Council. But neither this disappointment nor any other claimed injustices from events which have occurred amounts to a sufficiently significant personal injustice justifying an investigation.
12. We note Mrs X might consider there are amenity impacts caused by future users of the site, once the development is complete and operating. These would be new issues for officers to consider. It would be for the Council to determine what action, if any, is required in response to any reports it receives.
13. The primary outcome Mrs X wants from her complaint is for the Council to revoke the planning permission or add more conditions to restrain the site’s uses. Both outcomes would require the Council to quash the permission in the form it was granted. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve these key complaint outcomes for her is a further reason why we will not investigate.
14. Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her complaint, including delays in the process. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here se we ill not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the main complaint outcomes she seeks; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman