Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to request an amendment before refusing a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council should have exercised its discretion, in accordance with its Customer Charter, to ask for an amendment to her client’s planning application before it refused it.
2. She says that as the Charter is unclear and entirely dependent on the case officer’s discretion, it is difficult for agents to advise their clients with any certainty. She would like the Council to allow a free resubmission of a further application.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. In that regard, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Miss X and the Council.
• the two planning applications relevant to this complaint, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Council’s ‘Customer Charter - Development Management Planning Applications and Chargeable Services’
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy the Council did not request an amendment before it refused her client’s second planning application, and she believes the Charter causes uncertainty for agents as to whether an amendment will be requested in each case.
7. But it is for the Council to decide its own policies. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. The Council’s Charter allows officers to “use our discretion to accept a minor change that does not materially alter the proposal, does not exceed the statutory timeframe and does not require re-consultation”.
9. In response to our enquiries, the Council has explained it made an assessment of whether it would have been appropriate to request an amendment. It says such an amendment would have resulted in a scheme which was substantially similar to the development already approved (following amendment) under the client’s first planning application. As such, it was not deemed worthwhile/appropriate to request the same amendment again, before determining the second application. This was a discretionary judgement it was entitled to reach.
10. As such, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify starting an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman