Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application near to Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council made errors when it considered his complaint about a planning application and failed to investigate evidence he provided. He said the Council failed to decline a repeat planning application, despite an appeal being dismissed on the same land. He said this had caused stress and anxiety, and time spent pursuing the complaint. He would like the council to apologise, reconsider his complaint and ensure application history is considered before repeat applications are validated.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 complained the Council failed to decline a repeat planning application, despite a dismissed appeal on the same land.
6. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged that it had discretion to decline to determine a planning application in certain conditions. It explained to Mr X the two planning applications he referred to were materially different in siting and layout and therefore, it did not consider it to be a repeat application and had decided to consider the application.
7. Mr X said there had been a pattern of vexatious planning applications at the site. In its complaint response, the Council said that it did not consider the recent applications to be vexatious, and applications would need to be considered to determine whether they had a reasonable foundation.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It is for the Council to consider what applications it considers, and it has appropriately explained its reasoning for deciding to consider the application. It also explained why it did not consider the applications to be vexatious.
9. Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint. He said there was delay and wording discrepancies between complaint responses. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman