The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s approval of a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council did not follow the proper procedure when it granted planning permission for a development. Mr X alleges that members of the planning committee were biased, and that planning officers lied during the process. Mr X is concerned about the impact the development will have on local wildlife and on his privacy. He says the new properties may overlook his home, affecting his enjoyment of his property and his privacy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(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
Mr X objected to a planning application to develop land behind his property. He says the Council failed to follow the proper procedures when granting planning permission. The committee report shows the Council considered whether the proposal complied with the local plan and took account of objections, which included concerns from Mr X about the impact on his amenity. It also considered the impact on local ecology. While the report noted the site had been cleared before the planning meeting, landowners do not generally need planning permission to clear a site. Having reviewed the planning application and associated documents, I have not seen enough evidence the Council failed to follow the correct process. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
Mr X also complains that drainage and wildlife impacts were not considered. While the published list of conditions did not include the standard ecology conditions, the decision notice shows that both ecology and drainage conditions were imposed, showing these matters were thought about. The planning records also show the Council assessed the potential impact on wildlife and included measures to mitigate any harm. There is not enough evidence the Council failed to follow the proper process when deciding the application.
Mr X also raised concerns about the neutrality of some planning committee members and the conduct of planning officers during the decision-making process. The Council considered these concerns and found no evidence of misconduct. As the Council has already investigated the matter, and we are unlikely to reach a different conclusion or achieve a worthwhile outcome, we will not investigate this issue further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman