Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s processing and decision on a planning application made by Mr Y, nor how it dealt with Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the issues complained of to warrant investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. We would not investigate any complaint by Mr Y or on his behalf as he had a right of appeal against the Council’s planning decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X was involved with a planning application made by Mr Y. The Council refused the application last year on the same date as the public consultation expiry date. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to independently investigate his complaint;
2. failed to take Mr Y’s planning proposal to the committee despite assuring Mr Y that it would;
3. dealt with Mr Y’s application as a delegated officer decision when a previous application had gone to the committee;
4. decided Mr Y’s application before the consultation period had ended;
5. rushed the decision before the Christmas break.
2. Mr X says the complaint-handling led to significant distress and an incorrect outcome. He says if Mr Y’s planning application had gone to committee, they could have made a different planning decision. Mr X says commentators on Mr Y’s application did not have their views taken into account. Mr X wants the Council to:
• compensate Mr Y for stress and inconvenience;
• apologise to Mr Y;
• refund Mr Y’s professional fees, application and pre-application fees;
• compensate all people who commented who did not have their comments taken into account;
• pay for the submission of a further application from Mr Y which should be decided by the planning committee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Inspectorate considers appeals about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;
• a decision to refuse planning permission;
• conditions placed on planning permission;
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s name is mentioned on Mr Y’s planning application form showing he was involved. But Mr Y was the planning applicant, not Mr X. Mr X’s complaint mentions no direct impacts of the Council’s planning refusal decision on him. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by that decision to warrant us using our resources and investigating.
8. In respect of the planning process, only one aspect of it had a bearing on Mr X. He was one of the commentators whose representations were not mentioned in the Council’s planning decision. Mr X’s comments were two emails sent on the same afternoon. Both expressed his support for Mr Y’s application. One gave his view, without further explanation, that Mr Y’s proposed development would not have adverse impacts in respect of three material planning issues. Mr X did not support his comments with any argument which officers would have been required to consider when assessing and deciding the application. The material planning matters formed part of the Council’s assessment of the application, despite Mr X’s comment not being mentioned in the officer report. So even if the Council was at fault by not mentioning Mr X’s representations in that report, officers assessed the material issues he listed. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from this issue which justifies us investigating.
9. We note Mr X says other commentators on the application also did not have their representations considered by the Council. That is not Mr X’s personal injustice, and he does not have standing to bring complaints on their behalf about any injustice they might claim.
10. Mr X also complains about the Council not handling his complaint in an independent way. We do not investigate councils’ complaint‑handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave 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.
11. We note Mr X claims injustices for Mr Y stemming from the Council’s planning process and decision. But even if we received a complaint about this from Mr Y or anyone complaining on his behalf, we would not investigate. This is because as a planning applicant, Mr Y had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. That is the appeal process, provided by national government, for applicants aggrieved at a planning authority’s decision and who want to challenge it. The Council’s planning decision notice to Mr Y informed him of his Planning Inspectorate appeal rights and gave information on how he could use them in time. So it would be reasonable for him to have used this appeal process to pursue the planning permission he still seeks.
12. If Mr Y believed the timing of the Council’s decision, the decision-making process it used, how it dealt with public comments on it, or any other part of the planning process had a bearing on the refusal decision, he could have raised those matters in a Planning Inspectorate appeal. If Mr Y considered the Council acted unreasonably during its planning process and as a result he incurred avoidable losses, he may have made a claim for costs as part of an Inspectorate appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the planning issues complained of to warrant investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint; and
• if we received a complaint from Mr Y or one made on his behalf about the Council’s planning process and decision, we would not investigate as he had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman