Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the application returned to the Council’s planning committee after permission was refused. At the second committee, members resolved to grant planning permission subject to a unilateral agreement. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on the property where he works, and the Council failed to consider the impact on local residents.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with the planning application and says the initial planning committee decision to refuse the application should stand. However, the Council says no formal decision was made during the meeting as members did not vote on a motion and agree the reasons for refusal. I understand Mr X disagrees, but planning permission is not granted until a decision notice has been issued.
6. I am also satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before it resolved to grant planning permission. The case officer’s report summarised the objections received, and the officer addressed concerns about the impact on the area and local residents. However, the case officer decided there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenities or living conditions of residents living nearby. The acceptability of the development was also discussed during the second planning committee meeting.
7. Furthermore, even if there was fault with how the Council dealt with the application, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice as a result. He does not live near the development site, and although he works nearby, he would not be significantly impacted by the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman