The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council declined to determine his planning application after it had been revised to address the findings of the Planning Inspectorate for an earlier application. He says errors by the Council should lead to it determining the application or reimbursing his costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Following the Planning Inspector’s decision not to allow Mr X’s appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for his development, Mr X submitted a second application which aimed to address the Planning Inspector’s areas of concern.
The Council declined to determine this application because, despite the amendments made, there had been no significant change following the Planning Inspector’s dismissal of Mr X’s appeal. However, while the case officer’s report clearly referred to this as the reason for declining to determine the application, there were errors in the decision notice.
In responding to Mr X’s complaint about this, the Council acknowledged its error and confirmed it had taken steps to avoid a repeat of the problem. However, it declined to return the fee Mr X had paid for the application.
While the Council’s error is clear, this error did not affect the outcome of the application. The Council considered it but came to the view that it was not significantly different to the application which the Planning Inspector had refused on appeal. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and its merits are not open to review by the Ombudsman. The Council has already told Mr X he can challenge its decision through the High Court or by appealing to the Planning Inspector.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman