Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not follow the proper process when it decided to grant planning permission for a site near to Ms X’s home. She further complains the Council did not follow its own complaints policy. Ms X says this has caused anxiety and distress. She wants the Council to apologise and explain why it did not follow the correct processes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X said the Council wrongly refused to call-in the planning application to a full planning committee. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation. In this case the Council decided the call in request was not valid. I am satisfied the Council followed its delegation process correctly and we are unlikely to find fault.
8. I am satisfied the Officer’s report properly assessed the suitability of the application. Even if the application was considered by a full committee it is likely the decision would have been the same. Therefore, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with the Council’s decision not to call the application in to the planning committee.
9. Ms X said the Council ignored comments and concerns that were raised by local residents. The Officer’s report summarised and addressed the concerns and it implemented planning conditions to mitigate the concerns. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the objections and we are unlikely to find fault.
10. Ms X said the application breached planning rules by lasting longer than 28 days. The Council told Ms X the 28 day rule applies to permitted development and this application was a full planning application.
11. Ms X said the application had been pre-determined because tickets for the event were being sold before planning permission had been decided. The Council told Ms X that the organisers of the event sold the tickets at their own risk. I am satisfied this did not influence the Council’s decision to grant permission.
12. Ms X said previous events breached planning controls. Each planning application is considered on its own merits. If Ms X believes this application breached planning control she can make a new complaint to the Council’s planning enforcement team.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
14. Ms X complained the Council took too long to respond to her stage two complaint. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman