The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council misled its Planning Committee. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council misled its Planning Committee by failing to share concerns raised by Environmental Health about a proposed development. She said Environmental Health suggested the need to defer the application so it could research concerns raised more thoroughly.
She said the Council’s failure to defer the application, will most likely result in the development having a negative impact on those living in the area. She wants the Council to ensure the development adheres to planning conditions and for the Council to compensate her for loss of amenity and harm to health.
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 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council. Firstly, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the planning application. It uploaded relevant information to its portal, allowed people to log their objections and completed an Officer’s report detailing the relevant material considerations. The Council consulted with Environmental Health in completing its Officer’s report.
Prior to the Planning Committee, the Council received further comments from Environmental Health. It said it had received additional concerns from residents but did not have enough time to research these sufficiently. Instead, it recommended planning conditions to mitigate these concerns. The Council recommended the inclusion of the proposed conditions to the Planning Committee.
Although Ms X feels the Council misled the Planning Committee by not deferring the application, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered concerns raised by Environmental Health, however, was satisfied the application could progress with the inclusion of planning conditions. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman