Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the handling of a planning application because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of a neighbour’s planning application. He is unhappy with the significant delays in the Council reaching a decision on the application.
2. Mr Y also complains about administrative errors on the planning portal and says the Council has reduced public confidence.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Y and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y’s neighbour submitted a planning application in 2024. The application was subject to multiple changes and consultations, which resulted in it exceeding statutory timeframes. I understand the application has been determined since Mr Y raised his complaint with us and acknowledge the decision date comes more than two years after the application was submitted.
7. Mr Y says the delays were unjustified and disproportionate. The Council explained why the application exceeded statutory timeframes to Mr Y and I am satisfied it took reasonable steps to progress the case at regular intervals. Whilst I acknowledge the significant delays in the Council reaching a decision on the application, it has provided justified reasoning for this. I understand the application to have included extremely complex technical matters that contributed to the delays and the need for additional consultations. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
8. Mr Y says he experienced intimidation and harassment from his neighbour and I acknowledge the distress this likely caused. However, the Council is not responsible for the actions of third parties. Therefore, we cannot consider this part of the complaint. Mr Y should report allegations of crime to the relevant police force.
9. Mr Y raised concerns about administrative errors on the planning portal. He told the Council expiry dates had not been updated, and it rectified this. Mr Y also raised concerns about contradictory pre-determination recommendations. The Council explained informal discussions do not constitute a final recommendation, and I acknowledge such discussions are not uncommon. If Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s final determination of the planning application, and how the decision was reached, he should raise this with the Council. If he remains unhappy with its response, he can raise a further complaint with us. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response and will therefore not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman