Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered planning matters. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did follow proper decision-making procedures when it determined a planning application. She said material planning considerations were not properly assessed and objections were not reported. She said this has caused her stress and anxiety and undermined her confidence in the planning process. She wanted the Council to reconsider the planning application and clarify how health impacts were assessed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X said the Council did not follow a proper decision-making process when it determined a planning application for a development near her home. She also said material planning considerations were not properly assessed and objections not fully recorded.
7. Miss X complained the Council did not properly address her procedural concerns about how the planning application was considered. In its complaint responses, the Council responded to the points Miss X raised including procedural standards for planning committee meetings.
8. 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 the Council 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 a complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to objections received and addressed the concerns raised including health impacts and a need for the development. The planning committee also considered the acceptability of the development before voting to approve the application.
10. The outcome Miss X wanted from the complaint is for the Council to reconsider the planning application. We cannot order councils to quash or withdraw permissions and repeat their planning processes. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman