Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications for development on a private road where Mr X lives. This is because Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of how the Council dealt with the first application and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the second application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has granted planning permission for development which restricts access to the private road where he lives. He says the Council has also failed to take action against the applicant for providing fraudulent information on an earlier planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant information about a planning application on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The application which Mr X says contained fraudulent information was withdrawn before the Council made a decision. Therefore Mr X has not been caused an injustice as result of the Council’s actions and we will not investigate this complaint.
7. The Council granted planning permission for the second application. The Council produced a case officer report which considered comments on the application from local people including Mr X as well as the Council’s local planning policies. Therefore there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission and so we will not investigate this complaint.
8. Mr X says all the information relating to the application was no available to him to comment on before a decision was made. The relevant information relating to the application was available to the public on the Council’s website. The Council is not obliged to provide the public with an opportunity to comment or rebuke anything within its committee or officer report which is produced after the deadline for comments has passed. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X has not been caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s actions in relation to the first planning application. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission for the second application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman