Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application relating to a site in his area. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the time being taken to decide the application to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a plot of land for which a planning application has been submitted to the Council. He complains the Council has failed to determine the application for over 12 months, without justification.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused considerable concern in the local community about the future of the land. He wants the Council to determine the planning application without further delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The administrative relationship in a planning application is between the applicant and the Council. It is not between the Council and any other third party such as someone who has commented on the application. The planning process is an administrative service and function provided to applicants. Mr X has sent several comments on the application to the Council. Making representations during the consultation period is the limit of his involvement in the planning process as a member of the public. Officers are not required to provide updates on their progress with an application to those who have commented on it. The Council has confirmed Mr X’s comments will be considered when making its decision. Delay in the planning decision‑making process remains a matter for the Council and the applicant to deal with. Council delay on the application is not a fault in a service which Mr X or other parties are receiving.
6. Local planning authorities have a duty under the National Planning Policy Framework, which is guidance from national government, to work proactively with applicants to secure the best possible planning outcomes for their areas. Sometimes that requires negotiations and amendments to proposals, taking longer than more straightforward matters. It is for the Council and the applicant to negotiate on the application as they see fit, in line with the relevant guidance.
7. We do recognise the time taken for the planning application to be determined has caused Mr X and others uncertainty about the future use of the site and some frustration. But uncertainty and frustration from the planning process delay is an insufficiently significant personal injustice to him to warrant us investigating, so we will not do so.
8. We understand Mr X wants the Council to decide the planning application without further delay. We cannot intervene in an ongoing planning process and order the Council to decide the application any sooner. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the matters complained of do not cause him sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman