Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. It is unlikely we would find any fault and there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. X complained about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a change of use request, for a residential property. They said the Council had not considered objections and should have referred the matter to a Planning Committee for a decision to be made there.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. X said the Council should have referred the decision making for this application to a Planning Committee (PC), partly because of the volume of objections and because a Councillor had asked for it to be considered there.
7. Given the circumstances of this specific application, the Council’s constitution permits the decision-making to be delegated to a planning officer. And the Council said in its complaint response, the Councillor had made their request for the matter to be decided at a PC, outside of the time period permitted for the matter to be referred.
8. I have also considered the planning officer’s case report on the application, and there is evidence it has considered the issues X raised, as part of their concerns in their complaint to us. The report identified why the officer did not think these issues meant they could not approve the application.
9. Given my observations about how the Council took the decision, at paragraphs seven and eight, it is unlikely I would find fault in the way the Council decided to approve the planning application and therefore cannot criticise it.
10. Additionally, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. I have considered X’s views about how this has affected them, alongside their geographical proximity to the proposed development. I am not satisfied that they have suffered any significant injustice as a consequence of the Council approving this planning application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find any fault and there is no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman