Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application and the subsequent complaint. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• failed to consider his objections to his neighbour’s planning application
• failed to explain why the council considers the loss of privacy caused by the neighbour’s proposal acceptable
• failed to acknowledge the distress that receiving an email in the evening caused him; and
• failed to provide an extract of the code of conduct for officers which he requested.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Assessment

5. From the information I have seen on the Council’s website, the Council received a planning application from Mr X’s neighbour. It publicized the application. Mr X objected to the proposal on several grounds including loss of privacy.
6. The planning officer prepared a report on the proposal. This includes a summary of Mr X’s objections. The planning officer explained why she did not consider the level of privacy lost to Mr X by the proposal to be unacceptable.
7. A senior officer agreed with the planning officer’s recommendation and granted planning permission.
8. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council delayed in responding to his concerns. This is fault. However, the Council apologised to Mr X for the delay, and we consider this to be an acceptable remedy to this part of the complaint.
9. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council considered his complaint. However, we do not consider this to be sufficient injustice to justify an investigation into this point alone.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his neighbour’s planning application; and
• we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because any failings in the complaint procedure alone to warrant our involvement.
11. We consider an apology for the delay in responding to his concerns to be a suitable remedy to his concerns about complaint handling. And, as we cannot required the Council to take disciplinary action against named officers, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman