Somerset Council

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application before granting planning permission. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

Mr X complains the Council failed to carry out due diligence when it gave planning permission for 30 properties near his home. He says the Council failed to consider that the developer would access the site via a private road which is the access to his home and several others. Mr X also says the developer will work on the Public Right of Way (PROW) without consultation or third-party agreement.

Mr X wants the Council to withdraw or change the planning permission.

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The planning officer’s report to the planning committee clearly states the road is a private lane with a PROW. It also sets out: the relevant local and national planning policies a summary of the objections received from resident including (but not limited to) concerns about safe pedestrian access and increased traffic.

and comments from statutory consultees.

The planning officer notes the highways team, and the PROW officer, had no objection subject to certain conditions on the planning permission.

The committee minutes show the committee heard from five residents and the developer. Committee members debated the proposal before unanimously deciding to approve the application subject to conditions.

I understand Mr X raised several concerns about the access via the PROW on the private road. However, from the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council properly considered concerns raised when it decided to grant planning permission. Where we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision, we will not question the outcome or criticise it.

Mr X wants the Council to withdraw or change the planning permission. Even if we were to find fault in the Council’s actions, this is not an outcome we could achieve.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application; and We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman