Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning applications as there is not evidence of fault by the Council and there is no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a planning applicant has integrated two separate planning application into one.

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:

• 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that the Council has encouraged a planning applicant to link two separate planning applications.
6. The Council says that they are not responsible for any actions of the planning applicant. Further, neither planning applications have been determined yet.
7. There is no evidence of procedural fault by the Council; the planning applications are separately listed and Mr X is free to make any objections he sees fit.
8. The Ombudsman would not investigate a complaint about planning permission if no planning permission has yet been determined (which is the case here) as no significant injustice has been caused and any other injustice is speculative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman