The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Authority’s decision to grant planning permission for a development close to his home. Both the planning officer and committee considered the relevant legislation and the representations received and decided to approve the application. Without fault, this is a decision the Authority is entitled to make.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Authority: Told lies at a planning committee meeting Failed to consider existing problems as relevant with the application Failure to consider the likely impact of pollution on health, living conditions, and the natural environment; and Failed to ensure scheme built according to approval and conditions
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
From the information I have seen no evidence of officer’s lying to the planning committee.
The National Planning Policy Framework says local planning authorities (LPAs) should focus on land use and the impact of that use “rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where these are subject to approval under pollution control regimes. [LPAs] should assume that these regimes with operate effectively”.
Mr X says the Authority failed to consider existing problems as relevant with the planning application. And failed to consider the likely impact of pollution on health, living conditions, and the natural environment.
The planning officer’s report refers to drainage issues. The Authority accepts the current treatment plant arrangement does not always work as it should. However, the Authority is entitled to assume discharge from the new treatment plant will be satisfactorily regulated by pollution control legislation.
Following reports of breaches of planning control, officers visited the site. The Authority confirms the development has not been built according to the approved plans. However, the developer has put in a retrospective application to regularise the build. Mr X has objected to this application which has not been decided at the time of issuing this decision. The Authority confirms there are no outstanding breaches on planning control at the site.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Authority’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman