Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a retrospective planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. This is because Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice because of any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not consider his representations about a planning application because he asked to be anonymous. Mr X says this caused uncertainty about whether the Council considered his objections when it decided to grant retrospective planning permission for the development. Mr X wants the Council to explain how it handled his representations and update its guidance about anonymous representations.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a retrospective planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. As part of the planning process, the public can make representations about their opinion of the proposed development.
7. Mr X wanted to object to the development. He said the applicant had already used all their permitted development rights and further development would negatively impact the local area. He further objected because it would extend development on Green Belt land.
8. Mr X wanted his representations to be anonymous. He did not want his name or address to show on the public planning portal for privacy reasons.
9. In its complaint response, the Council explained why it requires someone’s name and address to be able to consider their comments. The Council must make sure representations are real and legitimate. The planning process needs to be transparent. It explained to Mr X that although names are shown on the public portal, addresses are anonymised. It accepted its website was not clear about the Council’s stance on anonymous representations.
10. The Council agreed to update its wording on its planning portal to clarify its stance on anonymous representations. I can see the Council did update its website. I am therefore satisfied with the Council’s actions in relation to this part of the complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X.
11. I have read the Officer’s Report about the planning application. The Officer completed a site visit and saw the existing development. The Officer assessed the impact on the neighbouring properties and area. The report also considered its impact on the Green Belt and decided the development was acceptable in planning terms. The Officer Report addressed the concerns Mr X had about the development and therefore he has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the Council’s decision not to consider his comments when it decided to grant retrospective planning permission.
12. Mr X further complained the Council was inconsistent in its stage one and stage two complaint responses. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, it is not good use of public money to consider matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman