Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failings in its handling of a neighbour’s planning application. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we will 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 there was fault in the administrative procedures followed by the Council in its handling of a neighbour’s planning application. He says there was a lack of consultation and a lack of scrutiny of the plans submitted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to the complaint
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s neighbour received planning consent to develop their property. Unhappy with the Council’s handling of the planning application and the processes followed, Mr X complained to the Council. The Council accepted it had been at fault in not carrying out further consultation on amended plans and on additional works which would have required consent in their own right.
7. In addressing the complaint, the Council went on to consider whether the impact of the amendments would have been significant enough to have resulted in a different recommendation or outcome. It concluded that, as the amendments would not have significantly impacted adjoining properties, the outcome would have been the same and consent would still have been given.
8. It acknowledged Mr X had missed out on the opportunity to consider the amendments and to have had any comments he wanted to make considered. It apologised for this and told Mr X that the case had been brought to the attention of planning officers and used as a “lessons learnt” example.
9. There was fault by the Council in its handling of this case which it has acknowledged and apologised for. An investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a conclusion that, but for the fault, planning consent would not have been granted. We expect councils to learn lessons from mistakes made and the Council has acted to bring the lessons learnt from this case to the attention of its planning officers.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we will 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