Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application for a site close to the complainant’s property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council showed a lack of impartiality and professionalism when dealing with a planning application. He also complains about a delay in the Council responding to his complaint.

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.

(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 information available on the Council’s website.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains about the way the Council processed a planning application for a development at a sports club next to his property.
6. The Council confirms members of the planning committee visited the site. They also visited Mr X’s property. It has also confirmed it cannot require planning applicants to consult with neighbours before submitting their applications.
7. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes:
• the relevant planning nation and local planning policies
• reasons for the refusal of a previous application at the site and the dismissal of the associated appeal to the Planning Inspector; and
• a summary of the objections received.

It also details why the officer considered the proposal overcame the objections.

8. The application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee. The minutes show that following a debate the Committee voted to approve the application.
9. From the information we have seen there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. Without fault, we cannot criticise the Council’s decision to approve the application.
10. Mr X also complains about a delay in the Council’s response to his complaint. While we expect Councils to follow their published complaint procedures, we will not investigate this point as we do not consider this caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation
12. Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman