Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has processed two planning applications for sites close to property owned by Mr X and his partner. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the management systems and officer competency in the Council’s planning department. Mr X has highlighted two planning cases to support his complaint.

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 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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We are not a regulatory body. We consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’.
6. Mr X has highlighted two planning applications which he says support his concerns about the way the Council’s planning department works. I shall call these applications A and B.
7. Application A concerns an application for a change of use for a property close to Mr X’s home. I understand Mr X is concerned about the consultation process and alleged errors in the planning application. However, from the information I have seen:
• The Council met the statutory requirements on publicising planning applications.
• Mr X commented on the application.
• The responsibility for ensuring the details in planning applications are correct lays with the applicant; and
• Application A was withdrawn by the applicant.
8. In view of the above, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with application A. And I do not consider Mr X suffered any significant personal injustice because of the way the Council dealt with this application.
9. A new planning application for the same site has been submitted to the Council. Mr X was notified and he has objected to the proposal. As a decision is yet to be made on this application I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.
10. Application B is a listed building application for internal changes to a flat which is sited below a flat owned by Mr X’s partner. I understand the Council served an enforcement order requiring the developer to stop work, however it has since granted planning permission for the works which the developer is carrying out.
11. Mr X has stated he has no objections to the process of the listed building consent itself. He does however say the Council’s failure to include working hours conditions caused the tenant to move out of the flat above the application site due to construction noise and his partner has suffered financial loss because of this.
12. Government advice says that local planning authorities should not attach conditions to planning permission which can be governed by other legislation. An example of alternative legislation is the Environmental Protection Act which covers amongst other things, noise. Mr X confirms he has already reported noise concerns to the Council’s Environmental Health team for investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning applications in question. Nor do we consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman