Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the planning application process for proposals at a site along the complainant’s road. The alleged faults have not caused a significant injustice, and we will not pursue the associated concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X raises a number of concerns about the Council’s handling of planning applications, and an associated appeal, at a site along his road. In summary, he says:
• the Council redacted key evidential material from objections.
• the application determination process was biased and lacked independence, with the same case officer used throughout.
• there was over reliance on flawed or inaccurate internal consultee responses.
• the Council gave a misleading characterisation of the site, the proposals, and the number of objections.
• the Council failed to have proper regard to material planning policies or considerations when assessing the proposals and making recommendations to the Planning Committee.
• the appeal procedure was unfair and failed to safeguard public participation.
2. Mr X also says the associated complaint process lacked independence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

4. With regard to the first bullet point, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong, or ask whether an organisation could have done things better. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decisions, and consider whether there was fault in the decision-making process. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of fault, we cannot ask whether the Council should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome; regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
5. With regard to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
6. We only investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspectorate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
7. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue(s).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about the planning applications and the appeal, on the Council’s planning website.
• information about the Planning Committee meetings, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I appreciate Mr X has spent time and effort on engaging with the planning application process, and that the alleged faults have caused frustration and wider community distress.
10. But ultimately, the two planning applications for the site were refused by the Council, and the intervening appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the alleged faults by the Council in the planning application process have not, from the Ombudsman’s perspective, caused a significant injustice. So, we will not start an investigation into those matters.
11. And with reference to paragraph 7 above, as we are not investigating the substantive issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue Mr X concerns about the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged faults in the planning process have not caused a significant injustice, and we will not pursue his concerns about the associated complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman