Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we cannot yet determine if the complainant has suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with an application for amendments to plans for a residential development near his home. Mr X says the changes to the plans are material and will increase the impact on residential amenity.
2. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Where planning permission is granted, developers sometimes find it necessary to make changes. If the Council decides the changes are ‘material’, it may require the whole or part of the process begins again with a fresh application. However, if the changes are considered ‘non-material’ the Council may allow changes without re-starting the process.
6. This type of amendment is known as a non-material amendment. There is no statutory definition of what is or is not a non-material amendment. The question is one of fact and degree and a matter for the Council to decide.
7. In this case, Mr X says many residents objected to the original application and the changes to the plans increased the impact on amenity. Mr X says the amendments are therefore material and residents should have been consulted.
8. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I could not say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. He was still aware of the application and raised his concerns about the development to the Council. Furthermore, the Council has not yet determined the application and therefore it is not yet possible to say what, if any, injustice Mr X may have suffered because of any alleged fault by the Council as it is not yet known if permission will be granted.
9. Mr X says the Council should not have allowed the works to continue while the application was pending. But the Council was entitled to decide it was not expedient to take formal enforcement action and government guidance encourages councils to resolve issues through negotiation and dialogue with developers. I also cannot yet say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the application has not yet been determined and the Council may decide the changes to the plans are acceptable.
10. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot yet determine if he has suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman