Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a nearby development. This is because it is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s response and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a nearby development. She says the noise and light from the development will affect her enjoyment of her home. She wants the Council to reconsider the planning application following proper process and considering all relevant factors.

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. 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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I also considered information about the planning application for the development, available on the Council’s main and planning websites.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y complains the Council’s planning approval process was flawed as it did not consider all relevant information when deciding the application, including her material objections. She says:
• the Council did not give enough notice of the planning committee meeting,
• a Council officer gave the committee misleading advice, which restricted its consideration of conditions for the application, and
• the committee decided the application before the public consultation period had ended.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said it uploaded the meeting details to its main website with five working days’ notice. It acknowledged it had delayed uploading the meeting information to its planning website. It said this was a system error but it would look for a solution, or more clearly signpost to the meeting information on its main website. It noted Mrs Y had still submitted her representations in time for the meeting.
7. We will not investigate this aspect of Mrs Y’s complaint. Mrs Y submitted her representations and they were considered at the meeting, so any delay uploading the meeting details to the planning website did not cause her an injustice. The Council has agreed to review its processes to ensure details of planning committee meetings are accessible from the planning website. It is unlikely we could achieve more than this.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained that the advice its officer had given the planning committee did not restrict the committee’s powers to impose conditions on the application.
9. The Council also explained it decided further public consultation on the planning application was necessary after it reviewed information from statutory consultees. It said it recognised this meant the planning committee meeting would precede the end of this consultation. It therefore recommended the committee delegated the final application decision, to allow time for further consultation responses.
10. The meeting report confirms the committee accepted this recommendation. It also references Mrs Y’s representations. The Council made its final decision on the planning application after the end of the consultation period. It approved the application subject to conditions.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has explained the reasons for its consultation process and timescales. Mrs Y was able to submit representations and these were considered as part of the planning process. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process to justify investigation and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because it is unlikely our involvement would add to the Council’s response and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman