Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information on a planning application. The injustice arising from the Council’s omission is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to disclose to the local planning authority that a property, with a current planning application, had been the subject of several nuisance complaints. Mrs X said the Council should disclose more information about the impact of the property.
2. Mrs X wants the local planning authority to refuse planning permission.

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 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 Mrs X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was unhappy the Council’s Environmental Health Team, initially made no comment, as a non-statutory consultee, to a planning application, where it is also the local planning authority (LPA). Mrs X said this meant as an LPA, it would not have the full breadth of knowledge about previous concerns in relation to the new planning application.
7. The Council has previously received and investigated nuisance complaints relating to the planning applicant’s property. And in those instances, the Council decided there was no statutory nuisance. Nonetheless, during the complaint procedures, the Council has accepted it should have disclosed more information to the LPA, when invited to do so. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for its omission and provided further information, as a consultee, about conditions to place on the site, to prevent nuisance. That is appropriate.
8. Additionally, members of the public can comment on planning applications before they are decided. A number of people have registered their objection to this application and have specifically shared the applicant presents a nuisance to them. So, despite the Council’s earlier omission, the local planning authority was still aware of the concerns and could enquire into those. And in any case, the LPA is yet to decide on the planning application.
9. Therefore, because of the actions the Council has already taken and my observations in the paragraph above, Mrs X has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s earlier omission and we will not investigate.
10. In any event, we cannot achieve what Mrs X is looking for. We could not compel the local planning authority to refuse the application because of the Council’s omission or direct it on what information it needs to disclose to the LPA.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice arising from the Council’s omission is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman