Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a site in Mr X’s locale. This is because the injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant an investigation and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of planning applications for a site in his locale. He says he is concerned about health and safety implications for residents in the area and that he has spent so much time pursuing matters, he has become stressed and frustrated and feels he may have to move away from the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Concerned about the health and safety of local residents, Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of three separate planning applications which relate to the development of an airport in his locale.
7. The Council addressed his concerns and explained its position in relation to the applications. It said while it appreciated that Mr X would have liked its consideration of the applications to have been linked, it had to consider the applications as they were made to the Council. It said the development of the airport was the responsibility of the owners and that other agencies and organisations would have to be satisfied with regard to health and safety issues at the site. It confirmed it had considered the applications in accordance with its Local Plan and planning law and that if he had wanted to challenge the decisions on the applications, his route to do so would be through Judicial Review.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X’s concern for his fellow residents is noted, there is insufficient personal injustice caused to him to warrant an investigation
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions councils make but with which complainants are unhappy. We cannot question the decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the outcome of the applications.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice caused to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant an investigation and we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman