Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the delays in dealing with a planning application. We do not consider the complainant has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation. Also we cannot achieve the outcome sought.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took more than four years to decide a planning application. He says it failed to identify errors and omissions in the information provided by the applicant. And showed bias towards the applicant.
2. Mr X says the delay caused the resident significant stress and anxiety. It also led to a campaign group spending a large amount of money to cover the cost of engaging specialists to help oppose the application. He wants:
• The Council to return the funds spent to those who contributed to the campaign against the application: and
• Ensure the application is not resubmitted or appealed by the developer.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the time taken to determine a planning application. However, the administrative function when dealing with a planning application is between the applicant and the Council as Local Planning Authority. Delay in the decision-making process is a matter between the application and the Council. It is not a fault in a service which Mr X or other parties received.
7. Mr X also complains the Council was biased in favour of the applicant. 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.
8. I understand the time taken for the Council to issue a decision on the application caused Mr X and others uncertainty and stress. However, the planning application was refused and we consider Mr X has not enough personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
9. Mr X wants assurances that the application will not be resubmitted in a different form. Or that the applicant will appeal against the Council’s refusal. This is not something we can achieve. The Council must determine any valid planning application it receives. Also, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Inspector against the refusal within six months of the date of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider he has suffered sufficient personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman