Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application because it is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the approval of a planning application. He says the Council did not adhere to rules regarding a buffer zone for a Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) near his property.
2. Mr Y says he will experience high noise pollution because the NEAP is being built within close proximity to his property boundary.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. A building developer made a planning application to create a NEAP as part of a wider ongoing development. There have been several planning applications for the development. The Council consulted with residents, including Mr Y.
8. A recent application for the site sought approval for the details of the proposed NEAP. Objections to the proposal were considered by the planning officer, and a clear explanation as to why these were not upheld were recorded within the planning officer’s report.
9. Mr Y says that his property will be within the 30-metre buffer recommendation of the NEAP. However, the Council properly considered Mr Y’s concerns and explained why this was acceptable. It said the buffer was a recommendation provided within planning guidance and is not mandated in law. Such guidance has since been updated, removing reference to the buffer zone.
10. The case officer explained the location of the NEAP had been established through the earlier applications for the development. The officer decided the location of the equipment for the NEAP would not have an unacceptable impact.
11. The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
12. I acknowledge that Mr Y is unhappy about the planning application being approved, but the Council properly considered the application, including the impact on neighbouring properties. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant us investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman