Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because we could not say the Council’s actions wrongly affected its decision to grant planning permission or, therefore, caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the process for deciding a planning application for development in his area was not fair or transparent. He complains about the content of the planning officer report and believes the Council’s attempts to rectify the issues after his complaint are inadequate or irrelevant. He also considers the process favoured the applicant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and information available online about the planning application. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is unhappy that valid objections to the planning application were not included in the planning officer’s report to the planning committee. The Council has explained these objections were referred to in an update sheet presented to the committee before the meeting to determine the application but Mr X considers this inadequate. He also fears that had he not raised the matter with the Council it may not have reported the objections to the committee, and that a briefing between the applicant and committee members behind closed doors was inappropriate and showed bias to the applicant.
5. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. Our primary role is to put right things which have gone wrong; we cannot recommend a remedy for something which could have happened but did not.
6. While Mr X considers the Council’s update sheet was inadequate it ensured committee members were aware of the objections before they reached a decision on whether to approve the application. The minutes of the meeting explain the reasons for the committee’s decision and it is unlikely we could say that had the actions complained about not taken place, the outcome would or should have been any different. We could not therefore say the actions, whether fault or not, wrongly affected the Council’s decision or that they caused Mr X significant injustice.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not say any fault by the Council wrongly affected its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman