Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of a planning application for development at a site close to Mr X’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Authority or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority has not properly addressed his latest complaint about its handling of his neighbour’s planning application for which permission was granted subject to a number of conditions.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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:

• 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. (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 Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has made a number of complaints to the Authority about its handling and consideration of his neighbour’s planning application. He objected to the application and his objections were taken into account when the application was determined and permission granted.
7. In reply to his latest complaint about the same application, the Authority pointed out that it had already addressed some of the issues he had raised in previous complaint responses. It noted that there were some new issues raised such as the nature and number of conditions placed on the planning permission but that it saw no merit in responding to these further issues. It explained this was because it had a duty to use public money carefully and having already restricted his contact due to the level of communication it had received from him about the case, it did not consider further contact would resolve matters to his satisfaction or be best use of limited resources.
8. Clearly Mr X is disappointed with the decision on the application, but it is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by authorities with which complainants disagree. We cannot question decisions made by authorities when they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority in its handling of the matter and insufficient injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
9. It is for authorities to determine the number and nature of conditions to attach to a planning permission and there is no requirement for public consultation in relation to the discharge of conditions. The Authority has confirmed it has monitored and enforced the conditions in relation to the application and that matters will remain under review until it is satisfied it can close the case.
10. The Authority is not obliged to continue addressing issues raised by Mr X until he is satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Authority or injustice caused to him sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman