The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s and Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to justify us investigating at this stage.
The complaint
Mr X and Ms Y complain about the Council’s handling of a planning application. They say the planning application is sub-standard and does not meet full planning criteria. They say the Council has not properly understood or addressed issues raised through consultation. They also complain about the Council’s handling of their complaints.
Mr X and Ms Y say it has been stressful to keep reviewing all the revisions. They want the Council to withdraw the planning application and follow its own processes.
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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and Ms Y.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning application The Council has not yet decided on the planning application and it is still in the process of receiving and considering objections.
The consultation and objection process provides Mr X and Ms Y with the opportunity to challenge and raise concerns about the application. It also allows the applicant to respond to concerns raised and, where appropriate, amend its application or revise its plans. It is therefore possible that consultees will need to consider and respond to further revisions.
I acknowledge Mr X and Ms Y have found it stressful to repeatedly review the application. However, having to consider and respond to revisions is not, in itself, an injustice caused by the Council, but a normal part of the consultation process as the application develops. I therefore do not consider the time and effort involved in participating in this process amounts to a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. Mr X and Ms Y remain entitled to raise further concerns as part of the application process, but they are not required to do so.
We cannot say whether the Council will grant planning permission in the circumstances. Therefore, any injustice that may be caused by the proposed development is speculative and insufficient to justify us investigating at this stage. Mr X and Ms Y may complain to us in the future if planning permission is granted. They would need to complain to the Council first before we can consider the matter.
Complaint handling As a publicly funded body, we must be careful how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive planning application matter, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation. Even though we are not investigating the complaint handling, we collect information about this and report back to organisations.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman