The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a property behind the complainant’s home. We do not consider any injustice suffered by the complainant is sufficient to justify an investigation. Also, we do not consider it is a good use of public funds solely to seek an apology.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the recognised standards for biodiversity in connection with his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Council incorrectly decided his objection to the planning application was defamatory and refused to publish it on its website.
Mr X says he has found the allegation that his objection letter was defamatory stressful and wants an apology.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X is not satisfied with the ecologist’s consultee comments on his neighbour’s planning application for a two-storey extension and detached garage.
The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. This included Mr X’s objections and comments about ecology discrepancies and failure to follow professional guidance.
Mr X says the Council has not followed recognised standards for biodiversity. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer considers the proposal overcomes the objections and meets the relevant legislation and policies.
It is for planning officers and/or committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
While I understand Mr X considers the Council has failed to follow the required standards, the Council has confirmed it is satisfied its ecologist applied due diligence and scrutiny to the proposal. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
Mr X also complains the Council incorrectly decided his objection to the planning application was defamatory and refused to publish it on its website.
The Council says Mr X’s objection letter was focussed on the ecologist’s consultation response and the inconsistencies he believes this contained. It says placing such allegations about an officer on a public website is not appropriate. Such concerns can be considered under the Council’s complaint procedure. It is clear from the planning officer report that Mr X’s comments on the planning application were considered despite not being available to view on the website.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I understand he has found the Council’s decision that his objection was defamatory to be stressful. However, it is clear the Council considered his objections and is satisfied it had enough information to make an informed decision to grant planning permission. Therefore, we do not consider the personal injustice he has suffered to be sufficient to justify an investigation.
Also, we consider it is not a good use of public funds to investigate with the aim of achieving an apology.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman