Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and there is no evidence of Ms X suffering a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council approved a planning application for a development close to her home, which would harm wildlife and their habitats.
2. Ms X said this caused her distress.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and documents relating to the planning application.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained the Council gave approved a development which would seriously harm wildlife and their habitat. Ms X and other residents submitted objections to the application.
8. The officer report and decision notice for this development suggest the Council considered objections about wildlife.
9. When it approved the application, the Council imposed conditions intended to ensure the protection of wildlife.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. 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.
11. The available evidence suggests the Council considered objections about wildlife and included conditions to ensure the safety of wildlife in its decision notice. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.
12. In any case, 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 an organisation.
13. While I acknowledge and sympathise with Ms X’s concerns, there is no evidence to suggest she has suffered an injustice which meets the threshold for our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and no evidence of a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman