Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s officers’ and its planning committee’s handling of an application for a development near her home, and how officers dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the planning processes, nor sufficient significant personal injustice to Ms X caused by the matters complained of, to warrant 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. Ms X lives near a site which has received planning permission for a development. She complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consider the foul water strategy for the development or its traffic impacts;
2. failed to present accurate information about the development’s impacts and surrounding area to the planning committee;
3. granted permission for the development before there was a wastewater strategy in place;
4. had the same officer reply to her complaint at two stages of the process.
2. Ms X is concerned about the effects of the development on the area.

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 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

5. I considered information from Ms 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’s 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. Ms X’s key issue is the way the new development will deal with future residents' wastewater. She also raised concern that the report to the committee was not accurate regarding local transport services. Officers considered these and other issues and concluded they did not give grounds for refusing the application. The officers produced a report on the application which was put before the committee.
8. It was for the planning committee Members to decide the application here, not the Council’s officers. The Members would have had access to all information on the application, including the public representations and objections. It was open to Members to decide the wastewater or transport matters gave them grounds to refuse the permission. If Members had considered these or other issues raised in representations had not been resolved by the officer’s report or supporting information, 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. We note Ms X considers the Council and committee should have required a strategy to deal with the development’s foul water to be in place before granting the permission. But planning authorities may grant a permission with conditions, requiring a developer to submit and have agreed by officers a wastewater plan. If no plan is provided or agreed, then a development may not be able to proceed without being in breach of the condition. In this case, the Council also recommended to the committee that the developer should enter into a ‘Section 106’ agreement about the foul water. This is a type of legal covenant between the developer and a planning authority. The agreement was made to ensure the arrangements, to process the foul water away from the development area, are put in place and remain there. It is not fault for a council to condition and control aspects of a development in this way, including wastewater matters.
10. 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 considered the material planning issues open to them and made their recommendations. Members then had the information before them when making their decision. We recognise Ms X may disagree with the committee’s decision. But it is not fault for a council or its committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Even if there has been fault in the planning process here, we would not investigate. We recognise Ms X has concerns about the effects of the development on the local area. But she is no more affected by it than many other residents. Her property does not border the development and is not caused significant amenity impact by it. Any impacts on others closer to or otherwise more affected by the development would not be Ms X’s personal injustice. There is insufficient significant injustice caused to Ms X by the matter complained of to justify us investigating.
12. Ms X also complained a Council officer dealt with two stages of its complaint process. 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

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant injustice caused to her by the matter complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ internal complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman