The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for the change of use of a building near the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence to conclude that fault in the decision-making process is likely to have affected the outcome.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council misled the Planning Committee and withheld important information regarding the impact of the proposed change of use of a building on crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the local area.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can 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. So, we do not start 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We can 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).
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
information about the planning application on the Council’s planning portal.
the report to the Planning Committee, the ‘Schedule of Additional Letters’, and the minutes of the Committee meeting.
the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the Council granting planning permission for the change of use of the site.
But 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, and consider whether the alleged fault is likely to have influenced the decision to grant planning permission.
In my view, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the alleged fault has affected the planning outcome here, so Mr X has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions. The Ombudsman will therefore not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that the following information was still placed before the Planning Committee: The Committee report states the number of representations submitted in support of and against the proposal, so Members were aware of the level of opposition.
The report includes the comments of local councillors, which acknowledge concerns of residents about an increase in ASB and crime, and includes specific examples of incidents believed to be attributable to the previous use of the site.
The objections of residents/community groups are summarised in the report, again including reference to the increase in ASB and crime in the area during the previous use, and examples of these problems.
The Schedule of Additional Letters highlights the concerns about the data/evidence being presented to the Committee by the applicant.
The ‘officer appraisal’ section of the report notes residents reported an increase in ASB and crime during the previous use and, whilst the report includes the disputed applicant’s data, it acknowledges that not all incidents would have necessarily been formally reported by residents. The report includes reference to relevant case law, and explains how the proposed use is different to the previous use.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault in the decision-making process is likely to have affected the planning decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman