Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council’s and planning committee’s decision and decision‑making process when dealing with an outline planning application for a development. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the complaint outcomes sought.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on road A in a recent housing development being built in several phases. Mr Y is Mr X’s representative and lives on road A. The Council received and decided an outline planning application for a further phase of the development. The application sought permission in principle for the proposed construction and to determine the site’s access, using road A for vehicles. Mr Y complains the Council:
1. grossly mishandled the planning committee meeting and decision process by failing to have a highways officers to attend meeting;
2. decided to grant the permission without the highways officer present, planning and process decisions which have been criticised by a senior officer in the highways authority (HA).
2. Mr Y says that on behalf of Mr X and all the residents of road A, he asks for the Council’s planning decision to be rescinded. He then wants the Council to rerun the planning procedure, to be thorough and apply all due diligence, including holding a new planning committee meeting with an HA officer and the required number of local councillors present.

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 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Y, relevant online planning documents, images 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 decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the process they have followed to make their decision. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
7. The Council officer’s report to the committee summarised the material access issues raised in response to the application. Officers received several written responses from the HA regarding the site access and other highways matters. The HA was satisfied that the proposed development’s access using road A was acceptable in planning terms and had no objections to the plans by the time of the committee meeting.
8. Officers gathered relevant information about the development’s access to produce their report. The committee then considered that report and the surrounding information to make their decision. As the decision-making body, it was for the planning committee to consider and determine the application. If the committee had had concerns about the access and the planned uses of road A, it could have deferred the decision to gather more information or refused the permission. The committee was satisfied that there were no material highways or other planning grounds for them to refuse the permission. That is a decision it was entitled to reach. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or committee’s planning decision-making processes to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X and Mr Y disagree with the decision. But it is not fault for a committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. We understand Mr Y considers the comments of a senior HA authority officer about there being no highways officer at the planning meeting to show the Council mishandled the planning process. The senior HA officer expressed surprise that the Council decided the application rather than deferring it to a later committee meeting when a highways officer could attend. Officers from consultee authorities may sometimes go to planning authority meetings. But it is not fault for an HA officer to not be present when a committee decides an application. The HA had given its position on the planning application in writing, giving the information and comment required as a planning consultee. That fulfilled the Council’s and committee’s requirement to consult on the application’s highways matters. There is not enough evidence of fault by the officers and committee in deciding the application in the absence of an HA officer to justify us investigating.
10. The outcome Mr X and Mr Y want from the complaint is for the Council to rescind the permission granted and rerun the planning decision-making process. We cannot order councils to quash or withdraw permissions and repeat their planning processes. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X and Mr Y want is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he wants from the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman