Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to add alleged risks, associated with a site allocation in the draft Local Plan, to its corporate risk register. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice, and there is another body better placed to consider concerns about the content of the Local Plan.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is failing to record in its corporate risk register the concerns he has raised about a proposed site allocation within the draft Local Plan.
2. Mr X says he worries for the safety of the gypsy and traveller community if the proposed site allocation is implemented.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. In relation to the first bullet point above, 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet point above, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Ombudsman will not start an investigation into this complaint, because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.
9. The Council has explained to Mr X why it does not consider it appropriate to add his site-specific concerns to the more strategic corporate risk register. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of that decision if there is no evidence of procedural fault in the way it was made.
10. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to suggest Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged risks not being added to the register itself. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that the Ombudsman cannot consider speculative injustice about events which may or may not happen at the site in the future. In addition, the proposed site allocation has not yet been formally adopted, as the draft Local Plan is still going through the examination process with the Planning Inspectorate. The examination will assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements and if it is sound; it is therefore better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the suitability of the site allocation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused him a significant personal injustice, and there is another body better placed to consider concerns about the content of the Local Plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman