Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice to warrant our involvement, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to consider his representations on a planning application, and did not update him on the progress of his complaint. Mr X stated that following the planning application, he has suffered disruption, causing him frustration. He would like the council to impose parking restrictions and compensation for his time and effort on the matter.

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:

• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X wrote to the Council in summer 2022 with comments on a planning application. The Council granted planning permission in autumn 2022. From the complaint replies, the Council did not consider Mr X’s comments as part of the planning officer’s decision.
6. Mr X was unhappy saying the disruption he suffered was because of the decision to approve the application.
7. The Council apologised to Mr X that his comments had not been considered within the planning decision. It confirmed however, that highway safety had been considered as part of the planning report. In addition, it said the Highway Authority confirmed that the planning proposals did not breach the standard requirement relevant to this development.
8. Mr X contacted the Council again regarding the matter in summer 2025. The Council apologised to Mr X regarding its communication, and time taken to fully address the complaint.
9. The Council stated that it would take steps to improve processes and procedures for acknowledging representations made on planning applications, and communication timeliness. This is appropriate action to resolve Mr X’s complaint.
10. Although Mr X’s comments on the planning application were not considered as part of the planning officer’s decision, the Council have confirmed that highways safety considerations were taken into account. Therefore, I am not satisfied Mr X has suffered a significant injustice, by the Council not considering his comments.
11. In any case, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is looking for. We are not able to direct the Council to pursue parking restrictions with the Highways Authority.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider he has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman