Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with planning applications for a site near the complainant’s home. This is because one of the applications has been subject to court proceedings and therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The complainant has not been caused significant injustice by the more recent issues she has complained about.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application to vary planning conditions attached to a site near her home. She says the application was not properly publicised and the case officer’s report contained incorrect information and did not address concerns raised by local residents.
2. Ms X has also complained about how the Council has dealt with a second application for the site. She says the Council has not learnt from the mistakes with the first application.

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.

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

4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Ms X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered any comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council received an application to vary conditions attached to planning permission for a site near Ms X’s home. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination and permission was granted. After permission was granted, an application was made for a Judicial Review of the Council’s decision and the permission has now been quashed.
7. Following this, the Council sought to redetermine the application. The case was due to be decided by the Council’s planning committee and the case officer recommended approval. However, the application was withdrawn before the committee meeting.

Assessment

8. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with the application to vary planning conditions. But the Council’s handling of the application is related to the planning decision which has been subject to court proceedings. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters already considered by the courts even if the proceedings did not provide a remedy for all the injustice claimed.
9. Ms X has also complained about what has happened since the court quashed the planning permission. She says the Council has failed to take account of the courts findings and the relevant facts were not available to the decision makers when the application was brought back for redetermination.
10. However, I cannot say Ms X has been caused any significant injustice by how the Council dealt with the recent application for the site as this was withdrawn and planning permission was therefore not granted.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to vary planning conditions is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Ms X has not been caused significant injustice by the Council’s handling of the most recent application for the site.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman