Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a planning application for a development despite access to the site being on a dangerous blind bend.

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. (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 Mr X and information available on the Council’s website. This included a report prepared for the Council’s planning committee and minutes from the committee meeting.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. A report prepared for the planning committee shows:
• committee members visited the site;
• the case officer considered the planning application against the local development plan and relevant policies and;
• the case officer considered objections about traffic and road safety.
7. The report outlines the case officer’s detailed consideration and reasons as to why the proposal meets relevant policy. This includes:
• a review of collision data showing no accidents of concern;
• consideration of the visibility splay in light of updated speed survey data (2023) and relevant guidance, showing the splay to be appropriate;
• comments on specific concerns about the length of the visibility splay against relevant data and guidance with the officer being satisfied the length was suitable; and
• comments on specific concerns about access for larger vehicles, with the officer considering their limited frequency of use and adequate visibility mitigated any issues.
8. The case officer concluded the proposal was in line with the relevant transport policy. Minutes of meeting show the planning committee considered the report and statements made at the meeting. The committee then decided to grant planning permission.
9. The records show the Council decided in line with relevant law and policy. It considered the concerns raised and gave reasons why it was satisfied with the proposal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman