Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s officers’ and its planning committee’s handling of an application for a development near his home, and how officers dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning processes, nor sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the matters complained of, to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a road which serves a site where the Council granted planning permission for a development. Mr X complains the Council:
1. ignored his traffic safety survey when dealing with the planning application;
2. misled the planning committee about the site’s access arrangements;
3. did not independently review his complaint.
2. Mr X is most concerned about how the site access will affect the general public’s safety. He is worried someone will come to harm and about who will maintain the access. He says his personal injustice is that he is frustrated the Council ignored his report which he considers would make the access safer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s or committee decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault officers or Members would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes they have followed to make their assessments and decisions. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. Mr X’s key concern is the safety of one of the roads serving the development site. Highways access is a material planning matter. Officers are required to consider information provided by the developer and comments from the public when producing their report. They also have a statutory consultee on highways planning issues, the local highways authority. That authority gave its views here, considering the impact of the new development compared with the site’s previous use, and made no objections. While officers did not refer specifically to Mr X’s highways report, they reflected his concerns in the report, which was to go before the planning committee.
8. It was then for the planning committee to decide the application. Mr X considers officers misled the committee Members regarding the highway issues. The Members would have had access to all information relating to the application, including the public representations. If Members had considered any matters raised in Mr X’s report had not been resolved by the officer’s report or the highways consultee response, they could have refused the permission or sought more information before deciding the application. Members voted to grant the permission with conditions, a decision they were entitled to take.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s officers’ and planning committee Members’ processes and decision-making here to warrant investigation. Officers and Members considered the material planning issue of the development’s highways issues. While we recognise Mr X wanted his representations to have been more prominent in the process, highways matters formed part of the officers’ assessment and were put before the planning committee when they made their decision. We recognise Mr X may disagree with that decision, or the parts relating to highways. But it is not fault for a council or its committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Even if there has been fault in the planning process here, we would not investigate. We note Mr X says the injustice he was caused is frustration that his highways report was not mentioned or specifically used by officers and elected Members when assessing the planning application. We recognise Mr X spent time and effort lodging his representations. But his frustration, time and trouble is not a sufficiently significant personal injustice to him which justifies investigation. We realise Mr X has concerns about the safety of other users of the road in future. But others’ injustice is not Mr X’s injustice. We also cannot take into account and treat as injustices concerns about events which might happen on the road in future, to Mr X or anyone else, as they have not happened.
11. Mr X also complained the Council’s complaints process lacked independence as an officer involved in the planning matter also dealt with part of the Council’s response. We do not investigate councils’ internal complaint-handling processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning processes and the planning committee’s decision‑making to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman