Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the plans submitted with an application to amend a planning permission were inaccurate and misleading. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The alleged fault is unlikely to have affected the planning outcome, so it has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have accepted the plans submitted with an application to amend a housing development, as they did not show the position of his property or highlight that the highway access was being moved closer to his home.

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 an investigation if we decide:
• 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. With planning complaints, this means we will consider whether the alleged fault by the Council is likely to have affected the decision on the application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included the slide presentation given to the Planning Committee which determined the application.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy with the new position of the access to the residential development opposite his property. But we do not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, our main role is to review the process by which the planning decision was made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the Council’s decision to grant permission.
7. I find the planning decision is likely to have been the same but for the alleged fault by the Council, so I do not consider the Ombudsman should start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• The Council must consider the application as submitted, and could only seek amendments if the proposal was unacceptable in planning terms.
• The position of the access in the original proposal was also opposite residential properties.
• The Highways authority raised no objections to the new position of the access.
• The change in the position of the access point is referred to in the report to the Planning Committee.
• The slideshow presented to the Planning Committee included photographs and plans which did show the location of Mr X’s property.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman