Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided confusing information during a public consultation on a planning application. Mr X stated that this caused local residents confusion and inconvenience. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council provided confusing and misleading information during a public consultation on a planning application. Mr X says this caused residents confusion and inconvenience.

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:

• 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

3. I have read Mr X’s complaint and the documents he provided. I read the documents provided by the Council. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 38(6) states planning applications must be determined according to the Local Development Plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. Local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission, unless it is founded upon valid material planning reasons.
5. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications.  The publicity required depends on the nature of the development although in all cases the application must be published on the council’s website.
6. The Council published a planning application for public consultation in April 2020. There were some errors in the documents and the Council published amended forms during the consultation period.
7. The Council published revised application plans for public consultation later in the summer of 2020. The Council approved the planning permission following the extra consultation.
8. Mr X complained to the Council in October 2020 about the errors and inconsistencies in the plans that were consulted on, but not about the decision to approve planning permission. The Council provided a stage 1 response in November 2020.
9. Mr X complained to the Council about its investigation into the stage 1 complaint in December 2020. The Council provided a stage 2 response and apologised for publishing the errors in the original planning application form.
10. Mr X complained to us in February 2021 as he was not happy with the Council’s final response. Mr X states the consultation process was unfair and treated the residents with disrespect.
11. The restrictions outlined in paragraph 2 apply as Mr X has not suffered a personal or significant injustice. The injustice to local residents of disrespect, confusion and inconvenience is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. And it is unlikely that an investigation would provide additional information or a different outcome from the investigation already conducted by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not suffered an injustice significant enough to justify the cost of the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman