Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council processing an outline planning application without the appropriate information, delaying its decision on the application, and how it dealt with his complaint. Even if there has been Council fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X sufficient significant injustice to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a site which has been the subject of outline planning permission applications. He complains the Council:
1. processed the latest application despite not having the appropriate information;
2. delayed in deciding the planning application;
3. delayed in dealing with his complaint and did not respond to it properly.
2. Mr X believes other planning applications in the area will be similarly delayed which he says impacts him and all other residents in the Council’s area. He says the delays cause uncertainty and stress. Mr X says the Council not following its procedures creates distrust and lack of confidence in the planning process. He says his concerns about the Council’s process led to him delaying making his own planning application, during which time the cost of living and building material prices have increased.
3. Mr X wants the Council to accept the planning process is broken, create a more robust and fair process and properly answer his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted an earlier outline planning permission for the same site, but for one dwelling fewer than the application about which Mr X complains. The granting of the earlier permission means the site has been deemed acceptable in planning terms for residential development.
7. It is for Council officers to decide whether the information they have received allows them to process a planning application they receive. None of the concerns Mr X has raised about the application documents prevented officers from processing it. For example, while it is correct that some of the planning documents erroneously refer to the earlier number of dwellings for the site, it is clear from the description of the application that officers were aware of the number of dwellings now being proposed. The contents of the Council’s planning report then shows officers considered the application in full knowledge of the correct number of dwellings being proposed.
8. The outline planning application description indicates all material planning matters are reserved except the site access. These reserved matters include concerns Mr X raises about the application documents regarding foul sewerage (including the location of any pumping station), site layout and highways issues. These matters and more will require an additional planning application to be submitted to the Council. As part of that future application process, Mr X will have the opportunity to consider and comment on the full proposed scheme, based on the documents submitted by the applicant.
9. The planning application form asks about applicants’ and agents’ links with ‘the Authority’. Mr X says the planning agent is as an elected member of a local parish council. He believes the answer of ‘no’ on the form is incorrect and suggests it is a conflict of interest. The form requires applicants or agents to declare their roles or connections with any others who have roles within ‘the Authority’. That authority is the planning authority, North Somerset Council, not the parish council.
10. Even if there has been Council fault in processing the application as submitted, we will not investigate. The Council’s decision to process the application may have caused some uncertainty and concern to Mr X. But that does not amount to a significant personal injustice to him. In reaching this view, we take into account that a future full planning process will further consider the planning issues he has raised in relation to the submitted documents and allow him to comment. The Council took longer than usual to decide the application. But that delay is not Mr X’s injustice because any significant impact would be to the applicant, not to Mr X. His having to wait for the outcome longer than the standard timescale is not a significant personal injustice to him which warrants us investigating.
11. Mr X’s other claimed injustice is that his concerns about the Council’s planning process dissuaded him from making his own application sooner, when building materials were cheaper. It was Mr X’s personal views of the planning process which dissuaded him from deciding to make his application earlier. That was his decision to make. The Council has no control over Mr X’s views of its services, nor on when he or anyone else chooses to submit a planning application. Mr X’s complaint implies the Council will not properly determine any future application he may make. But this would be a speculative injustice about events which have not yet happened, so is not an actual injustice we can consider.
12. There is insufficient significant injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of which justifies an investigation, so we will not do so.
13. Mr X considers the Council delayed its complaint process and its replies were not adequate. We do not investigate council complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• even if there was Council fault, there is insufficient significant injustice to him caused by the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate council complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman