Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council considered a planning application. This is because we do not start an investigation where there is not enough evidence of fault or when an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council did not properly consider the impact of proposed development near her home, especially the need to carry out a Noise Impact Assessment. Mrs X says the Council should take noise mitigation measures or revoke the 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 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. 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. Mrs X objected to development near her home because of increased noise. The Council suggested an independent Noise Impact Assessment. In response the developer submitted a detailed Noise Management Plan. The Council considered this and other information available and decided it was no longer proportionate to require a Noise Impact Assessment.
7. Mrs X complained that it would be difficult to make an informed decision about the impact of the development. The Council said that it had reviewed its decision, and it had followed the decision-making process correctly. However, it also said the Planning Officers Report should have been clearer about the change in requirement for an assessment. It said it would do refresher training.
8. I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council followed the correct decision-making process and considered relevant information before reaching its decision. It decided it would be disproportionate to require an assessment based on the scale of proposed development and the steps outlined in the Noise Management Plan. The plan restricts activity to a small number of extra hours, a limited number of participants and places limits on types of activities.
9. We look at the process a council followed to make its decision. If the Council followed its process correctly, we cannot question that decision even if a complainant disagrees with the decision made. I see no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision not to require a Noise Impact Assessment.
10. I will not investigate the areas of Mrs X’s complaint upheld by the Council, including the need for clarity in the planning officers report and improvements in communication with Councillors. The Council has taken steps to address these issues. It is unlikely that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman