Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

The complaint

1. Mr X represents Mrs Y. He says:
• The Council allowed a planning applicant to manipulate it.
• Planning Committee Members accepted information from applicants rather than accept their Officer’s recommendations.
• Planning Officers should have voiced the reasons for their recommendation rather than assuming Members have read it.
2. Mr X wants the development stopped. And the Council to review their procedures for development committee meetings.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council or committee decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making processes and but for that fault officers or members would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s or committee’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. The Council received a planning application to build houses on land behind Mrs Y’s home.
8. Objections were received from members of the public and the Highway Authority.
9. The Highways Authority recommended refusal on highway safety grounds. The Planning Officer’s report states the Highway Authority would seek to resist any intensification of vehicular use of the lane. The Planning Officer recommended the application be refused.
10. The local ward Member asked for the application to be refused. They were critical of the Highway Authority objections. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation states that Officers will decide planning applications subject to certain conditions. One condition is that no Member has asked for the application to be referred to the Committee. In this case a Member asked for the application to be decided by the Committee.
11. The minutes of the Committee meeting show:
• The Planning Officer’s report was considered.
• The Highway Authority concerns were noted.
• A letter of support for the proposal from the local Member was read out, as he did not attend the meeting or take part in the vote.
• Members debated the application. They noted the application was acceptable in all ways except the Highway Authority concerns and residents’ objections.
• A member proposed a vote to accept the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. This vote was lost.
• The Planning Committee decided to place greater weight on the benefits of the new homes and the sustainability of the location which they considered outweighed the highway harm. A vote was taken, and the Committee overturned the Officer’s recommendation and approved the application.
12. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ or the committee’s decision-making processes here to allow us to go behind the decision or to warrant an investigation. The minutes show the objections were considered. We realise Mr X disagrees with the planning decision. But it is not fault for a council or its planning committee to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
13. Mr X wants the development stopped. This would mean the Council revoking the granted permission. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions, nor order them to prevent development of a site. That we cannot achieve the result Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Committee considered the planning application to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman