Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council decided a planning application for a housing development. This is because there is insufficient evidence any alleged fault has caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice. Also, the courts are better placed to consider whether the Council’s decision was legally flawed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly applied the tilted balance under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) when it approved a major housing development. She says Planning Committee Members were misdirected on a key legal test because the committee report relied on an estimated four-year housing land supply. While a Cabinet report published shortly before the committee meeting referred to a 6.14-year housing land supply. Mrs X says this difference meant the Council wrongly decided the tilted balance applied.
2. Mrs X says the development will have a lasting impact on the local area, including increased pressure on infrastructure, roads and public services. She wants the Council to organise an independent investigation into the planning decision and confirm whether the proposal should have been treated as a departure from the development plan. If any misdirection in law or procedural fault is identified, reconsider the application or refer it back to the Planning Committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. To justify an investigation, the Ombudsman expects a complainant to show they have suffered a direct, significant and personal injustice because of the alleged fault, over and above any impact experienced by the wider community. Mrs X lives near the proposed development and is concerned about its impact on local infrastructure, roads and public services. However, she has not demonstrated the development will cause her a direct and significant personal injustice that is materially different from the impact on other local residents.
9. Mrs X said the Planning Committee was misdirected in law about housing land supply figures and the application of the tilted balance. In effect, she challenges the legal basis of the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the Council's interpretation of planning law was correct. That is a matter for the courts. If Mrs X considers the Council acted unlawfully, the correct route to challenge the legality of the decision is by application for Judicial Review.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence she has suffered a significant personal injustice arising from the matters complained about. Also, the courts are better placed to determine whether the Council’s planning decision was legally flawed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman