Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development, the proceedings of planning committees deciding the application, nor how the Council dealt with his complaints. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives several miles away from a site which was the subject of a planning application to the Council. Another authority, the lead local flood authority (LLFA), acted as a consultee on drainage and flooding. He complains:
1. the Council did not follow national policy processes required for developments in areas at risk of flooding;
2. officers failed to assess the developer’s proposed water management plans;
3. the officer at the planning committee gave incorrect and misleading information, prevented correction of those errors and misrepresented the LLFA’s position;
4. he was prevented from making all his comments to the committee;
5. the Council failed to properly and independently investigate his concerns and inappropriately used the ‘Unreasonable Behaviour Policy’ to avoid scrutiny.
2. Mr X says:
• he has spent a significant amount of time pursuing the issues;
• he has been caused stress and frustration and a loss of confidence in the Council's ability to assess flood-risk matters properly and in the fairness of its procedures;
• he has been left with serious concerns about the council's approach to public safety, its willingness to follow national policy, and is concerned future developments may be approved without the safeguards intended to protect the community;
• his being interrupted at the Committee affected the Members’ understanding of key facts and their decision;
• he feels excluded from the planning process and unable to have his concerns properly and seriously considered;
• he is concerned about the independence and impartiality of the Council’s complaints process.

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 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

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has raised issues about this Council, the planning authority charged with deciding the application, and about the involvement of another authority which acted as a water and drainage consultee on the application, the lead local flood authority (LLFA). Mr X considers the Council did not apply the relevant tests for flooding impacts of the development when assessing the application. He considers there was a pattern of procedural fault during the planning process when considering the adequacy of the proposed drainage scheme. Mr X says the Council relied on incomplete information from the LLFA. He says officer comments at the committee meeting also affected the way it dealt with other material planning issues relating to the application, including visual impact, housing density and the amenity of nearby properties. Mr X says the Council’s officer gave wrong and misleading information, prevented any correction of this and misrepresented the drainage authority's position. He says he was prevented from making all his comments to the committee on the matter and correcting inaccuracies. The Council considers its officers correctly assessed the application following the requirements of its role as the planning authority and that the committee properly dealt with and decided the application.
6. Even if there has been Council fault in all the issues Mr X has raised here, we will not investigate. The planning application on which Mr X focuses much of his concern is for a development several miles from where he lives. There is no impact on him or his property caused by the outcome of the planning process being the Council granting the development permission.
7. We understand Mr X claims other injustices from the matter complained of, as summarised in paragraph two above. But Mr X chose to involve himself in and spend his time on a planning process the outcome of which has insufficient impact on him to warrant us investigating. Any stress and frustration he feels was due to his decision to become involved, not any fault by the Council.
8. The planning process allows members of the public opportunities to comment. It is not a dialogue between the public and officers about the planning application at hand. Mr X asked questions about the drainage scheme of the LLFA as a consultee, not this Council as the planning authority. Mr X was included in the planning process by having his submissions considered by the planning officers then the committee. The committee proceedings are controlled by the chair and are also not a forum for public speakers to have discussions on applications with officers or Members. It is Mr X’s expectations of how much he may be involved in the planning and committee processes which caused his feelings of being excluded from it, not Council fault.
9. We understand Mr X says he was interrupted and prevented from making all his comments at one of the committee meetings considering the application. He believes this affected the planning application outcome, due to the timings and contents of the officer’s interventions. Mr X had already made his comments on the application, which were provided to the committee. The Council’s officers had also referred Mr X’s comments to the LLFA to get its responses before the committee decided the application. That Mr X did not get to make all the comments he wanted to in person, on a planning application the outcome of which had no impact on him nor his property, does not cause him a sufficient significant injustice to justify us investigating.
10. Mr X refers to concerns about how the Council dealt with other applications in its area but does not provide evidence that those applications had any impact on him or his property resulting in a significant personal injustice. His concerns about how the Council may deal with future applications is speculative and do not amount to sufficient significant injustice to him. We cannot take account of claimed injustices from events, such as future planning processes and decisions, which have not happened.
11. None of Mr X’s claimed injustices, individually or taken together, amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice which warrants us investigating, so we will not do so.
12. We note Mr X is concerned about the independence and impartiality of the Council’s complaints process and that its responses referred to, but did not apply, its ‘Unreasonable Behaviour Policy’. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core matters giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core matters which gave rise to the complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman