Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of an access visibility splay when determining a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council supplied the Planning Committee with incorrect information about visibility splays at the entrance to a proposed development, as the recommended minimum measurements are not achievable at the location.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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 Mr X.
• information about the planning application and the Planning Committee meeting, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is concerned about the safety impacts of the entrance to this development.
6. But 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has determined the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• objections to the proposal were summarised in the Committee report, including concerns about the visibility splay.
• speakers at the Committee meeting also raised concerns about the visibility splay.
• the Local Highways Authority raised no objection to the final plans/assessments, subject to conditions.
• the Committee report goes on to consider the dimensions of the visibility splay in more detail. Officers were entitled to reach a professional judgement and make a recommendation on this issue, even if Mr X disagrees with the conclusion reached.
• Members of the Committee asked questions and raised points about the visibility splay, before voting to the approve the application.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman