Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council did not properly consider the proposal and determined the application before the deadline for consultation responses ended. Mr X says he was unable to provide additional information to the Council before planning permission was granted.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint.

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.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
7. In this case, the Council says a notice was placed in a local paper, and a site notice was put up. A deadline was given for residents to comment on the proposal, and Mr X objected to the application. Before determining the application, the Council decided to also consult Historic England. The deadline for response was updated on its website. Mr X says the Council granted permission while consultation was still ongoing. But the Council has explained Historic England commented before the deadline and the decision to grant planning permission was made shortly after this.
8. Mr X says he was intending on sending additional information but was unable to do so as the Council granted permission before the consultation deadline ended. But the application was not decided before the deadline for public comments expired. Furthermore, even if I did agree there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X suffered significant injustice.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the acceptability of the proposal, including the concerns raised by residents and the impact on the Greenbelt. The officer also explained how the proposal overcame the reasons for refusing a previous application for the site.
10. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X been able to comment further on the development or if the application was decided later.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman