The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application as there is no evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly consider a planning application. He says the Council should have delegated it to the Planning Committee.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says that the Council determined a planning application from a neighbour too soon and failed to pass the planning application to the Planning Committee (as it had been for previous planning applications).
The Council provided a chronology to show that the planning application was determined within the statutory deadlines. I note that Mr X objected to the planning application in any event.
I am satisfied that the Council determined the planning application after a correct opportunity was granted to neighbours (and others) to object. As Mr X objected (and statutory bodies commented) I see no injustice from any allegation that the planning application was determined too soon.
I note the Planning Officer report refers specifically to Mr X’s objection and amenity but considered that this was insufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application because of the distance involved.
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.
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. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
Mr X argues that the local Councillor asked for the Planning Committee to consider the planning application. The Planning Officer specifically states; “(the Member) expressed his concerns about the application and support for the objections raised but no request for the redirection of the application to planning committee has been received.”
I am satisfied therefore that the Council properly considered the planning application.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman