Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a member of the Council’s planning department failed to disclose an interest they have in planning applications in the area where the complainant lives. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice. We cannot investigate decisions made by the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained a Council officer failed to disclose an interest they have in planning applications in the area. Mr X has also raised concerns about the officer’s involvement in the preparation of the draft local plan and the drawing of the new settlement boundary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspector. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
4. 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has referred to planning applications for developments in the area where he lives. Mr X says the agent dealing with the applications is related to a member of the Council’s planning team and the officer should have declared an interest in the applications. Mr X says other applications have been referred to the planning committee because the agent is related to a Council employee.
7. Mr X has highlighted three applications that were dealt with by the agent where an interest was not disclosed. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the first application Mr X referred to. The case officer’s report summarised resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The officer also considered the impact the development would have on the area and neighbouring properties, before deciding the proposal was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had the officer declared an interest and the application been determined by the planning committee.
8. The second application Mr X has complained about was withdrawn before it was determined. Therefore, Mr X has not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council considered the application. The third application was refused by the Council and approved following an appeal to the Planning Inspector. The Ombudsman cannot investigate decisions made by the Planning Inspector.
9. Mr X has also raised concerns about the preparation of the draft local plan. But there is a set process that will be followed before a new local plan is adopted by the Council. The draft local plan will also be subject to consultation and approval by the Planning Inspector. Decisions made by the Inspector will be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
10. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. We cannot investigate decisions made by the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman