Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with retrospective planning applications for a site close to the complainant’s home. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor it is likely we will find fault in the process followed by the Council leading to its decisions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council granted planning permission for retrospective planning applications which contained false information and the applicant signed a false declaration.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. From the information I have seen, the matter of the wrong declaration being signed by the Council receiving the correct signed certificate was rectified during the application process. The Council also opened a further 21-day consultation period so I do not consider that Mr X suffered any injustice. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of the complaint.
7. The Planning Officer’s reports includes details of the objections to the application received by the Council. The applications were considered by the Council’s planning committee which granted conditional planning permission.
8. It is the Council’s role, as local planning authority, to decide whether a development is acceptable. This should occur after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
9. The information I have seen strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case. Therefore, the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find that there had been fault if he investigated this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• Any fault in the first submission of the wrong ownership certificate was corrected during the planning application process. This did not cause Mr X any significant personal injustice.
• We have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for the applications which are the subject of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman