Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in determining a third party’s planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council took too long to determine a planning application for a proposed dwelling close to his home. He says this caused him serious distress and that the Council should apologise to him and others.

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 Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. In mid-2018 the Council received a planning application for the erection of a dwelling in Mr X’s locale.
5. After various changes to the applicant’s plans and after seeking and considering expert advice on the application, the Council finally refused permission for the proposed development about 18 months later.
6. Unhappy with the time taken to determine the application, and with the Council’s handling of it, particularly around the advice that had been sought from independent experts, Mr X complained to the Council.
7. In responding to his complaint, the Council acknowledged the case had been a complex one which had required independent advice. It apologised for its delay and confirmed that one of the changes it would be making to its practices and processes was that in future officers would be instructed to commission consultancy support in the early stages of the application process.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us seeking an apology for him and two local councillors.

Assessment

9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X has clearly involved himself in defending his local environment during the time it took for the application to be determined, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council has acknowledged there was delay in determining the application. It explained in some detail its position with regard to the case and confirmed it will be changing its practice so that in future officers will be instructed to commission consultancy support in the early stages of the application process.
11. Mr X says he wants an apology but he has already received this and we would not investigate his complaint to pursue an apology for a third party or councillors.
12. Mr X also complains about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint but we will not generally investigate complaint handling matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
13. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X has highlighted his view of errors made by the Council in its handling of the expert reports and about communication with the parish council. He has explained he was caused severe distress by the matter at a time when his family situation was also very difficult. However, while the impact on Mr X is noted, the application was not his and it was ultimately refused. An investigation by the Ombudsman cannot put Mr X back to a position he would have been in had the application been more promptly decided.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman