Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application and actions relating to a specific site. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice because the Council’s actions. Also we cannot achieve the outcomes he is seeking, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has ignored evidence provided by residents for a planning application, instead choosing to rely on inaccurate information from the applicant. He also says certain objections to the application were removed from the Council’s website.
2. Mr X says the development of the site has caused himself and other residents and road users to suffer increased risks to:
• road safety
• flooding
• industrial work in the green belt; and
• environmental change.
3. He wants:
• Revocation of Use Class Order B2 on the site's Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD).
• Changes to the CLEUD to restrict the permitted size of the on-site workforce.
• The imposition of a daily limit on the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles that can be operated from the site.
• Limits on the number of cars that can park on the site.
• Re-appraisal of previously developed land and, therefore, the extent of the certified land.
• Implementation of a more robust process for the handling of third-party submissions for consideration on the Council’s website with case officers held accountable for their correct handling.
• Reinstatement of his objections to the recent planning application.
• An investigation into whether the applicant deliberately misled the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X does not have authority to complain on behalf of anyone else. I understand he has concerns about a recent planning application. However, the Council has refused the application therefore I consider any injustice he may have suffered because of the way it dealt with the application is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
8. We cannot require the Council:
• To revoke or change any existing Certificate of Lawful Development.
• Limit the number of vehicles accessing or parking on the site.
• Re-appraise the previously developed site.
• Investigate the actions of private individuals or companies.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The Council refused the latest planning application. Therefore we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the way the Council dealt with the planning application for the site.
• We cannot achieve the outcomes he is seeking.
• We consider further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman