Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably imposed a need for a bat survey as part of a planning application. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and there would be a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably imposed a need for a bat survey as part of a planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. The complainant has commented on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says that, as part of the validation procedure for planning applications, the Council has unreasonably required applicants to carry out a bat survey which he says is unnecessary and expensive.
9. The Council says that any planning application for certain developments in a bat roost area will require a bat survey as part of the validation process. The Council says that this is in compliance with the law. They say that bats are a planning consideration.
10. Mr X says that other Councils do not have the same requirements. The Council says that they are more robust in their enforcement of the practice of requiring such surveys.
11. I appreciate that Mr X considers that the process could be less rigorous and that there are alternative ways of assessing the effect upon bats, but the Council is entitled to have their own policy as long as it complies with the law. In the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise that policy.
12. Mr X can appeal any decision of the Council to a Planning Inspector who can consider whether any condition is reasonable or not. The Planning Inspectorate is an expert body and its decisions are binding on the Council. I see no reason why an appeal could not be made in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I do not intend to investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault and there would be a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector.
     

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman