Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a planning application and enforcement case. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a planning application while an appeal against an enforcement case about the same matter was pending. He says this has allowed unlawful development to continue.
2. Mr X also complains the Council failed to tell him of the delegated decision which denied him his right to file a Judicial Review claim.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about a planning application which was approved even though an appeal against an enforcement case about the same matter was still pending.
8. I have read the appeal decision and the officer’s report for the planning application. The officer’s report explains how the application addresses the Planning Inspectorate’s reasons for previously refusing a similar application and provides a reasoned explanation for why the Council considers the new planning application is acceptable. As the Council has considered the relevant matters and provided a reasoned explanation for its decision there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained that breaches of planning controls can be resolved via retrospective planning applications. The Council noted the Enforcement Notice was served because the applicant had not submitted a planning application at the time the notice was served. The Council explained a retrospective planning application was submitted which resolved the outstanding concerns. The Council also explained that the Planning Inspectorate sought the views of the Council on the retrospective planning application. The Council provided a clear explanation for why it determined the application rather than waiting for the outcome of the appeal. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to approve the retrospective planning application to justify an investigation.
10. I do not consider there is sufficient remaining injustice to justify an investigation. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that Mr X lost the opportunity to make a Judicial Review application. Mr X could have applied to the court for a late Judicial Review application on the grounds of the late notification.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a planning application and enforcement case. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman