Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a crematorium within a cemetery. We cannot act as a right of appeal, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council conducted the planning process to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X said the Council failed to listen to the wishes of the local residents when deciding to build a new crematorium.

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.

(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 the complainant and the Council, as well as checking documents on the Council’s planning portal.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms X provided consent for Mr Z to represent her. I have considered their complaints. I have received no consent to consider the complaints of anyone else.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We cannot therefore consider whether the Council should have accorded with the wishes of local residents, whether as part of a group, or individually. We can only consider if the Council acted properly in deciding the planning application. The number of residents who may have objected to the development does not alter our legal powers.
7. Councils that act as planning authorities must ensure those potentially affected by a development have the opportunity to object to it. They must also consider relevant planning matters when reaching a decision. What relative weight they give to relevant planning considerations is a matter for them to decide. Where the planning authority is also the applicant, giving those opposed to the development the opportunity to object, and considering those objections that are on relevant planning grounds, is particularly important.
8. In this case, the evidence on the Council’s planning portal indicates it consulted neighbouring residents, both through public events, and by notifying properties near to the proposed site. In any event, the number and variety of grounds of objection to the proposal indicates local residents were able to make their views clear. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find the Council prevented local residents from making representations against the proposed development.
9. The evidence also indicates the Council took account of a range of planning matters when deciding the application. These included whether the development was needed, traffic and parking, possible air and noise pollution, increased footfall in the area, the effect on local businesses, available burial space, distance from neighbouring properties and other buildings, privacy, the effect on wildlife, and possible flood impact. The number of objections received is not a relevant planning matter. Where a planning authority acts properly by considering relevant planning matters, it can decide what relative weight to give them, and we cannot impose our own view. Were we to investigate, it is unlikely we would find the Council failed to consider relevant planning matters in reaching its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman