Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development in Mr X’s neighbourhood. The matters complained of did not cause Mr X significant enough personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly tell residents of changes to a planning application in his neighbourhood. He says this meant residents did not have the opportunity to respond to any changes or attend a committee meeting considering the application. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly consider parking provision or increased traffic at the proposed development and failed to give accurate information about this at a committee meeting. Mr X says he spent a lot of time and effort dealing with the Council on these issues.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not properly telling residents about the changes to the planning application. Mr X did find out about the changes and was granted a three-week extension by the Council to reply. Mr X also attended the committee meeting. So this point did not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough for us to investigate it. The Council apologised for not telling Mr X personally of the changes, said it had checked his records, and he was the only resident it had failed to tell. Nobody else has authorised Mr X to complain to us about this point. The evidence we have does not suggest a wider problem. So it would be disproportionate for us to consider this point further.
6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not properly considering parking or increased traffic. Mr X lives several streets away from the proposed development. He has not suggested either of these issues would badly affect him personally. We cannot speculate the response given by the officer at the committee meeting regarding an increase in traffic would have affected the committee’s decision on this point. The Council has said it has made improvements and will aim to give more accurate answers at future committee meetings. It is unlikely we would achieve much more than that. I understand Mr X has spent time and effort dealing with this matter however there is not significant enough personal injustice to warrant investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matters complained of have not caused him significant enough personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman