Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development at a property adjacent to her property. We will not investigate the complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for development at a property adjacent to her property. She says the Council did not respond to her communication, answer her concerns and queries and did not remove from the planning portal an email from the applicant which she believes is defamatory.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council received a planning application from an applicant to develop a property adjacent to Ms X’s property. The application has yet to be determined.
5. Ms X submitted objections to the application and sought to contact the case officer to discuss her concerns.
6. Unable to contact the officer, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about the lack of contact and about her concerns with the application. The Council responded to apologise that she had not been able to contact the officer and gave her the Development Team’s direct dial number for any future concerns. It also went through the particular concerns she had about the application, including the description of the application site, management of waste refuse, highways issues and the planned use of the ground floor of the application site. It confirmed that if any amendments were made to the application she would be notified.
7. Following this Stage 1 response, Ms X contacted the responding officer via email with a number of queries to which replies were given.
8. At Stage 2 the Council noted the responses provided by the officer and advised that the issues Ms X was raising with regard to the technical detail of the application were planning issues which would be addressed in the determining of the application.
9. In response to Ms X’s concerns about what the applicant had put on the website, which she considers to be untrue and slanderous, the Council advised that while all submitted comments are considered by officers, they are not able to engage in any disputes between landowners and it has not seen any comments which it considers require removing.

Assessment

10. Ms X has made known her objections to the application and these will be taken into account when it is determined.
11. The Council has adequately addressed Ms X’s complaint and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. If Ms X believes comments made by the applicant are defamatory then it is open to her to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman