The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council disregarded the medical report he produced as part of his objections to a planning application in his locale. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council disregarded the detrimental health impact on the community of a planning application which received planning permission from the Council. He says it knowingly disregarded and downplayed the evidence he, a medical specialist in the field, provided.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether an organisation’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) We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.
My assessment
Mr X, a medical specialist, submitted his objections to a planning application in the form of a medical report which highlighted his concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the health of the community, particularly around air quality.
The Council considered his objections to the application as part of the normal planning process. However, it decided to grant permission for the development.
While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. Mr X clearly expressed his professional views but officers in public protection, planning and public health exercised their professional judgement and concluded that, subject to mitigating conditions, the development could go ahead.
In responding to my draft decision Mr X says he wants to request a further review of the proposed development. However, this is not our role. Planning permission has been given and an investigation cannot lead to the reassessment of the application. Mr X’s view is that an appropriate health impact assessment has not been undertaken and that the development represents a significant health risk to the nearby local population. However, this view, made by him and others, was considered by the Council when it made its decision as the officer report to the Committee shows. Councils have to balance a number of different considerations in coming to planning decisions and while future national legislation may change standards that regulate air pollution, this change has not taken place yet.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman