Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in dealing with a planning application for a small housing development, is guilty of abuse of process, and failure to communicate with him properly. The Council has refused the application as Mr X wanted. It has appropriately acknowledged its fault and failure of service to Mr X and apologised.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to determine, since summer 2019, a planning application for housing on a site close to his home. Mr X objects to the proposal. He believes the Council wants to pass the proposal because it will gain financially from the community infrastructure levy and increased tax receipts. He says this is an abuse of process. Mr X says the failure to decide the application is a breach of his human rights and frustrating. It could cause problems if someone in the locality wants to sell their property. Mr X wants the Council to refuse the application, acknowledge its failures, and take action to prevent a repeat.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to reply to his emails requesting information. He says it has delayed replying to his formal complaint. The complaint reply came from the head of service about whom he was complaining and was inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and discussed the complaint with him by telephone. I have considered the Council’s complaint reply and case information available on its website. I have considered internet photographs of the area.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council was due to decide the application for a housing development by the summer of 2019. It refused planning permission in January 2021. The Council says development of the site for housing would be in accordance with its local plan. However, the number of houses and quality of the proposal was not acceptable.
6. Mr X told us the Council acknowledged his complaint in September 2020. On 25 November, the Council informed us it had done an initial reply and the complaint was at final stage 2. The Council’s final reply is dated 29 January 2021.
7. The Council’s reply to Mr X explains its position and partly upholds his complaint. The Council says:
1. It accepts it delayed in determining the application although there was also delay by the applicant and more recently an appeal to the planning inspector. It says it will now refuse planning permission. The Council says because it is a small housing development the financial gains were not significant or a driver. The main consideration was contribution to the Council’s housing target. The site could be developed but the detailed proposal was not acceptable.
2. The Council apologises for the failure of officers to keep Mr X informed on the progress of the case and reply to his emails and telephone calls asking for updates. It says there was a failure of service.
3. The Council apologises for the delay in replying to the complaint at stage 2. I have not seen an earlier reply.

Analysis

8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
9. The Ombudsman investigates fault or service failure causing injustice. There is no injustice caused to Mr X by the delay in the application. It did not infringe his human rights or cause him significant problem. The Council has apologised for the limited injustice caused by its poor communication and sufficiently for the delay in replying to his complaint.
10. Investigation will not achieve anything more regarding Mr X’s position. The Council has refused the application as Mr X wanted. It has apologised and there is no reason for it to do more.
11. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate the handling of the planning application and the reasons for delay. We will rarely investigate fault or service failure where there is no injustice. If the Council had acted from financial gain, without consideration to material planning matters, it would have approved the application which it did not do.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed in dealing with a planning application for a small housing development, is guilty of abuse of process, and failure to communicate with him properly. The Council has refused the application as Mr X wanted. It has appropriately acknowledged its fault and failure of service to Mr X and apologised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman