Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process for a development in her area, nor how it dealt with her complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mrs X stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in an area where the Council received an application for planning permission to build properties on a disused site. She complains the Council:
1. denied her and the public access to a proper decision-making process when handling the planning application;
2. failed to explain to her and others why the same application was going back before the planning committee a second time;
3. delayed in dealing with her complaint and provided inadequate replies.
2. Mrs X says she has spent time and been caused trouble and upset by the matter, and the complaint process. She believes she had to go to hospital several days after the second committee meeting because of the stress it caused and her feeling that she had been bullied and intimidated. In her complaint to the Council, Mrs X said she wanted the permission suspended pending a thorough, independent and public investigation.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s planning committee first considered the planning application in 2024. Mrs X and other residents spoke at the meeting to object. The committee resolved to refuse the permission. Before the decision notice was issued, officers noted problems with the recording of committee Members’ voting which also affected the procedures the committee followed. Officers referred the application back to the planning committee at the next available meeting. The Council sent Mrs X a notification letter to advise of the reconsideration of the application. Mrs X asked why the application was being decided again. The Council did not explain what problems there had been with the first committee meeting. Officers advised the application would be considered ‘afresh’ by the second committee. Mrs X lodged a complaint before the committee reconsidered the application. She and other public objectors spoke at the second committee meeting. The Members voted to conditionally grant the permission.
6. There were procedural and administrative errors in the Council’s planning process which resulted in officers sending the application back to the committee. Officers also accepted on reflection that they should have given more information to Mrs X and others about the reasons for this.
7. But these and other planning process issues do not give us grounds to investigate. The outcome of the planning process was the grant of permission to the development. Even if there was fault by the Council which led to the development receiving its permission incorrectly, we will not investigate. The development does not share a boundary with and is well over 50 metres from Mrs X’s property, with other existing properties and vegetation in between. Mrs X may have distant views of part of the development once built. But there is no requirement in planning to only permit developments all existing residents approve of within sight of their properties. Mrs X having views of the development from her property would not be a significant impact on her which would justify us investigating. We note other residents who also objected may be closer to the site. But any injustice those others may claim from the planning outcome and development would be theirs, not Mrs X’s. We recognise Mrs X has spent time on objecting and been caused frustration and upset by the Council’s planning process. But it was her decision to engage with that process, the result of which will have minimal or no impact on her and her property’s amenity. We could also make a finding Mrs X’s experiences at a committee meeting directly led to her hospitalisation over a week later. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mrs X stemming from the decision to grant permission to the development and the process followed to warrant us investigating.
8. The Council delayed in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X also complains she was dissatisfied with the complaint replies she received from officers. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Mrs X does not say what remedy she wants in her complaint to us. In her complaint to the Council she says she wants the planning permission suspended pending an independent investigation of the planning process. We cannot order a council to suspend or otherwise delay an applicant acting on a granted planning permission. That we cannot achieve the key outcome Mrs X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to her stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman