Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement, and there is insufficient evidence of Mr Y suffering significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application that he says contained material changes to the original. He says the original application included a passageway that provided an extra route for pedestrians. Mr Y says that without the passageway, pedestrian footfall has increased on the residential street directly below his home.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A major planning application was approved in 2019, near to Mr Y’s home. Drawings within the application included a passageway that provided an additional access route for pedestrians. Approval of the planning application did not include conditions or obligations for the passageway to be in place, and it was not considered mandatory to the overall development.
6. In 2022, a further planning application was submitted about the same development. Drawings within this application did not include the passageway. The Council decided the application did not include material changes and so it approved this. When a planning application is considered not to include material changes, the Council has no statutory duty to consult the public on this.
7. Mr Y complained to the Council about its lack of enforcement action. He said the developer should be made to include the passageway. The Council explained that because the passageway was not subject to specific conditions or obligations, there is nothing to enforce. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
8. Mr Y complained further about the Council’s decision to approve the later planning application, where drawings did not include the passageway. He believes this constituted as a material change.
9. The Council explained it did not consider the absence of the passageway as a material change to the planning application, nor did it consider the passageway being of such significance that the development could not go ahead without it. The Council accepts the passageway was likely a desirable factor but concluded it was not deemed essential. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in deciding this. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. 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 an organisation 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 somebody disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. Mr Y says without the passageway, pedestrian footfall has increased on the residential street directly below his home. He says this has created significant noise and disruption. The Council says even with the additional passageway, there is no certainty that pedestrians would have used this. The Council was clear that there was never an intention to restrict access or control pedestrian footfall from the building’s access point below Mr Y’s home.
12. I understand Mr Y is unhappy with the increased footfall on the residential street, but there is insufficient evidence of him suffering significant personal injustice. Given the scale and type of development that was originally approved, I consider there was always going to be an increase in pedestrians accessing and exiting the building and consequent footfall.
13. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. There is also insufficient evidence of Mr Y suffering significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman