Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions leading to Mr X suffering a significant personal injustice to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made multiple errors in the way it dealt with a planning application for his neighbour’s property. He says the Council:
• Validated an application which included many errors in the application form which are punishable by a fine of up to £5,000; and
• Was biased towards the applicant.
2. He wants the Council to prosecute the applicant for the lies in the application form.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council validated his neighbour’s planning application despite the application form containing several errors including:
• A failure to confirm the applicant is married to a Council employee.
• The applicant claimed to live in the property when they do not; and
• They had sole ownership of the property which they do not.
7. The onus for ensuring planning application forms contain the correct information lays with the applicant, not the Council. The Council is entitled to rely on the information provided by the applicant, and it is not required to carry out any routine ownership checks with the Land Registry.
8. In this case, Mr X told the Council about the error, and it sought a new application form from the applicant. This was provided with the correct information and the Council reconsulted on the proposal.
9. Mr X wants the Council to prosecute the applicant for the errors on the original application form. However, it is for the Council to decide whether to prosecute and not something the Ombudsman can direct it to do. Also, while he may be concerned, we consider the decision not to prosecute does not cause Mr X any direct injustice. For these reasons we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
10. Mr X also complains the Council was biased in the way it considered the proposal to extend the neighbour’s home.
11. However, from the information I have seen, the planning officer visited the site and wrote a report on the scheme. Mr X objected to the proposal and these objections are noted in the officer’s report. The report also contains the relevant national and local planning policies and the planning officer’s reasons for recommended the application for approval.
12. The minutes of the planning committee meeting shows that Mr X spoke at the meeting advising the committee members of his objections. Following a debate, the committee voted to approve the application.
13. I understand Mr X believes the Council was biased towards the applicant; however we have not seen enough evidence of this. From the information we have seen the Council obtained a correct planning application form and Mr X’s objections were considered before the Council decided to approve the application. Where we are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision, we will not question the outcome or criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We cannot require the Council to prosecute the applicant for errors on the original planning application form. Also, we do not consider the decision not to prosecute has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice; and
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman