Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application and delays in its responses to the complainant’s letters. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision‑making process to warrant an investigation. The matters raised do not cause a significant personal injustice to the complainant to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr K, complains the Council:
• Delayed in responding to his letter for three months
• Responded to correspondence the day before the Planning Committee meeting, leaving Mr K with one day to complete his comments.
• Failed to follow its right to speak policy; and
• Accepted comments on the planning application after the closing date for comment.
2. Mr K says he has incurred costs in communicating in writing. He also says the Council does not have robust policies and procedures in place to monitor the planning department.

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 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 K and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), in this case the Council, are required to allow people to make representations on relevant planning applications for a minimum of 21 days. However, it is at the LPA’s discretion to accept comments after the consultation period has ended.
7. The Council confirms Mr K’s comments were read out in full to the Planning Committee before it made its decision to approve the application for a supermarket in the town where he lives.
8. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr K’s letters. It says this was due to an increased workload during a period of high staff turnover. While we expect authorities to respond in good time I do not propose to investigate this issue further as an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
9. The Ombudsman will only normally investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider. I do not consider that Mr K has suffered such an injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. And we do not consider that Mr K has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman