Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. And we do not consider the injustice claimed by Miss X is not significant enough to justify our involvement

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly manage the planning process for an application to develop a listed building and associated buildings on a site near her home. She also complains the Council mischaracterised the complaint as disagreement with planning judgment and did not properly investigate her concerns.
2. I understand Miss X says this has caused her to lose trust in the planning process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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), section 34(B))

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. 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. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or to tell it how to operate its services.
7. 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. I consider there is not enough evidence of procedural 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:
• The Council’s website shows the Council received multiple documents for the application. It also invited the public to comment when new documents were received. The documents also show whether they were superseded.
• The planning officer’s report includes:
1. a summary of the objections received
2. the relevant local and national planning policy
3. Comments from statutory consultees; and
4. The planning officer’s reasons for recommending the committee approve the application.
9. Also, committee members are entitled to reach their own judgement on the material planning considerations and the weight given to these in the overall planning balance.
10. The published minutes show the committee debated the application. They also show:
• objectors and the local councillor made statements detailing their objections to the scheme
• the agent spoke in support of the application
• committee members asked many questions and sought information from objectors, the agent and planning officers.
11. I understand Miss X queries the veracity of the minutes. However, the Council does not record its planning meetings and minutes are not required to be a verbatim record of the meeting.
12. From the information I have seen the committee were satisfied they had enough information to make an informed decision on the application. Indeed, they could have chosen to defer the application if they required more information. They did not.
13. Miss X says the Council’s actions have caused her frustration and loss of trust in the planning systems. 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 by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
14. While I understand Miss X is concerned about the process the Council followed before granting planning permission. I do not consider she has suffered a significant personal injustice, so we would not start an investigation for this reason too.
15. Finally, Miss X complains about the way the Council considered her complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation; and
• We do not consider the injustice claimed by Miss X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman