Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also we do not consider that any failure in the complaints procedure alone causes Mr X a significant personal injustice which warrant an investigation into this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. He says the Council:
• ignored the objections made by him and others
• ignored the requirements of a conservation area; and
• misled the planning committee; and failed to respond to his complaint in an appropriate manner.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application for changes to sports courts close to a sports club where Mr X is a member. The site is in a conservation area.
6. The Council publicised the application and notified statutory consultees.
7. Mr X and others objected to the application.
8. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. The report includes (but is not limited to):
• Confirmation the site is within a conservation area.
• A summary of the objections received.
• Relevant national and local policies.
• Confirmation the Heritage Officer does not object
• Reasons for recommending the application be approved.
• Confirmation the development can be seen from the public realm.
• Reasons for considering the proposal is not likely to affect the setting or views in or out of the AONB.
9. The report was considered by the planning committee. Two people spoke at the committee meeting who objected to the application. One of the statements by them was:

“The Council has a stated duty to ensure all developments respect the important views within, into and from the College Character Conservation Area.”

10. A ward councillor also stated they considered the proposal is “out of keeping with the conservation area” and “will significantly impact the setting” and impact views into and out of the Cotswold escarpment”.
11. Two people also spoke in favour of the proposal.
12. The published minutes show the committee asked questions and debated the proposal before deciding to approve the application.
13. I understand Mr X believes the Council ignored the objections and failed to consider the impact of the proposal on the setting and long-distance views, into, from and within the character area.
14. However, from the information I have seen Committee Members were fully aware:
• the site is in a conservation area
• the development can be seen from public areas.
• People including the ward councillor believe the proposal will have a negative impact on the views in and out of the conservation area.
15. It is the Council’s role as the local planning authority to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning polices, comments from statutory consultees and objections and representations from people affected by the decision. It is also the decision of the committee to decide the weight to be given to those.
16. The evidence I have seen, including the planning officer’s report and minutes of the committee meeting, strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.
17. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. While I acknowledge he found the Council’s responses inappropriate, I do not consider the personal injustice caused to him on this point alone to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application. And he has not suffered a significant personal injustice from the way the Council considered his complaint to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman