Summary
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council decided discharge of conditions applications for a proposed development next to his property. There is no extant planning permission for the development because it lapsed earlier in 2022, so any claimed injustices to Mr X from how the Council dealt with the discharge of condition applications fall away. The Council not advising Mr X of its decision on the validity of the main planning permission may have caused him upset. But that is not a sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
Mr X lives next to a site granted permission for a residential development in early 2019. He complains the Council: failed to notify of or consult him or his neighbours on several 2021 discharge of condition applications related to the 2019 permission; accepted the 2021 applications despite them including numerous errors and omissions; refused to review the planning consents to determine whether the 2019 approval could be implemented; refused to confirm whether the 2019 permission has been lawfully implemented.
Mr X says he has been caused stress by the delay in the planning decision. He says this has been compounded by the Council not notifying him of the 2021 planning documents nor telling him if the development can go ahead. Mr X says the 2021 condition applications worsen the impact of the development on his property. Mr X wants the Council to confirm whether or not the 2019 permission has been implemented. If the Council believes it has been implemented, he says it should get the applicant to address the errors and omissions in the 2021 applications.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Issues a) and b) in Mr X’s complaint refer to how the Council dealt with three discharge of conditions applications. Those conditions were attached to the neighbour’s planning permission granted in 2019. The Council has confirmed it considers the 2019 permission has lapsed. The Council investigated by visiting the proposed development site and officers took the view that insufficient works had been done to amount to commencement of the permission. This means the conditions attached to have also lapsed. In these circumstances, there can be no injustice to Mr X from the discharge of conditions matters as they are no longer relevant. There is no Council-authorised planning permission in place for the previously proposed development.
Issues c) and d) of Mr X’s complaint are about the Council not confirming whether the 2019 permission had been lawfully implemented. It was for the Council to determine whether the permission had been implemented in time, which it has now done. This is not normally a public matter as it is primarily between the Council as planning authority and the recipient of the permission. It may have been better if the Council had advised Mr X of its position on the validity or otherwise of the 2019 permission. I recognise the Council not doing this may have caused Mr X some stress, frustration or annoyance. But that is not a sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating this matter now.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is no extant planning permission for the development, so the discharge of conditions applications related to it are no longer relevant, and any claimed injustices to Mr X from how the Council dealt with them fall away; any stress, frustration and annoyance caused by the Council not advising him of its decision on the validity of the 2019 planning permission is not a sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman