Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the issues Mr X raises have not caused him significant injustice as the Council has not yet decided whether to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council is processing a planning application. He says the Council has:
• exceeded its expertise in technical matters
• mismanaged a planning application
• cooperated with the applicant to the detriment of the residents; and
• delivered subjective opinion in direct contravention of the objections of over 100 households with direct experience, and contrary to the expertise of the local fire service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council acknowledges the planning officer decided to increase the number of neighbour notification letters sent and the number of site notices erected to publicise a planning application for a site close to Mr X’s home.
6. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
7. Mr X is aware of the application as are other members of the public. The Council’s website shows it has received many comments on the proposed development. Therefore, I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s publication of the planning application.
8. The Council has yet to determine the planning application and may therefore still decide to refuse it. We could not therefore say the issues raised by Mr X have caused him significant injustice and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for him by investigating his complaint at this time.
9. If the Council decides to approve the application, and if Mr X believes the Council has failed to properly consider the objections it has received and other material planning considerations, he may raise a new complaint with the Council about these issues. Once the complaint has exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure and if he remains unhappy, Mr X may refer the complaint to us to consider further. We will not however revisit the complaints addressed in this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice at this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman