Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process for a residential development in her area, and how it responded to her complaint. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X attends a local residents’ association and is involved in representing it. She made representations on a planning application for a residential development in the area. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. gave misleading and inaccurate information to Members through the planning report and at the committee meeting about the development’s requirement for public open space;
2. failed to properly respond to her complaint and delayed in providing its final response.
2. Mrs X considers she has been caused injustice by the planning matter because of her involvement in her local association, including on similar issues about public green spaces with the Council. She says she has spent time reading the application documents and feels affronted by the Council’s planning process.

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.

(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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The core planning process issue relates to the information before committee Members regarding the amounts of open spaces on the residential development when they decided the final ‘reserved matters’ planning application. Different kinds of open land with various planning designations were involved from the initial ‘outline’ application to the reserved matters application decided recently at committee. The Council accepts information about the open spaces on and relating to the site could have been expressed more clearly in the reserved matters planning documents. But the Council considers all information was taken into account by Members when deciding the applications.
6. Mrs X does not say whether she believes the development and surrounding areas will have less open space due to the planning process issues raised. But even if there has been procedural fault by the Council which has altered the amount of public or other spaces on or next to the residential development, we will not investigate. Mrs X lives several streets away from the development so is not caused a significant injustice by the planning outcome in relation to her own property’s amenity or its locality. We understand Mrs X considers she has injustice due to her participation in a neighbourhood association and previous involvement in similar issues with the Council. But her wider interest in these issues does not result in her having an injustice from the planning outcome which is significantly greater than other local residents here to warrant an investigation. We note Mrs X says she has spent time reading the application documents. That use of her time primarily stems from her own decision to be involved, not from an action by the Council. Mrs X says she has been affronted by the planning process issues she has raised. But this annoyance at the process, along with any other impacts on her from the matters complained of, do not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to her which justifies us investigating.
7. We note Mrs X considers the Council failed to properly respond to her complaint and its final response was delayed. We do not investigate councils’ complaints processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman