Summary: Ms X complained about delay in the Council’s handling of a planning application. We ended our investigation as it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a remedy for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about delay in the Council’s handling of a planning application which members were minded to refuse.
2. Ms X would like the Council to make its decision without further delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The planning inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The planning inspectorate considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions or decisions of the planning inspectorate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the complaint and discussed it with Ms X. I read the Council’s response to the complaint and considered documents from its planning files, including the plans and the case officer’s report.
7. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I took account of the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning law and guidance

8. Councils should approve planning applications that accord with policies in the local development plan, unless other material planning considerations indicate they should not.
9. Planning considerations include things like:
• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Planning considerations do not include things like:
• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
11. Some councils issue policy and guidance on how they would normally make their decisions and how they generally apply planning policy. Policy and guidance and should not be treated as if it creates a binding rule that must be followed. Councils must take account of their policy along with other material planning considerations.

What happened

12. Ms X’s complaint relates to the Council’s handling of a planning application for development on land a considerable distance from her home. The Council planning committee considered the application and indicated it would refuse it because of problems with access to the highway and a lack of detail about drainage arrangements.
13. Ms X said the Council’s decision was not made in accordance with its constitution. She said planning officers have not issued the decision but have instead allowed more time to provide information.
14. Ms X complained that though the committee had stated its intention, the decision notice was not issued, and the matter was not brought back to the committee sooner, in line with the Council’s constitution.

My findings

15. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
16. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?
17. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
18. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
19. I should not investigate this complaint further, because:
• The courts have made it clear that councils must not treat policy as if it creates binding rules. Instead, councils must be flexible and take account of all the circumstances before deciding how to act. Our investigations seek to determine whether councils have taken account of their policies before they make their decisions. We are not an appeal body, so in the absence of fault, we cannot say how officers should exercise their judgements.
• Even if we were to find fault in the way the officers have acted, we would not be able to say it caused Ms X a significant injustice. This is because her home is a significant distance from the proposed development, so she would not be affected by the development and is not affected by any delay there may be in issuing the planning decision.
• In a response to an earlier draft of this decision, Ms X said she is not concerned about the planning decision, but her focus is on the Council’s failure to follow its constitution. Our role is to investigate complaints if we have evidence to show that individuals have been caused injustice by some fault in process. Declaring the legality of an action is a function of the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I ended my investigation because it is unlikely to result in a finding of fault or a remedy for the complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman