City of York Council (24 012 803)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice from the result.
The complaint
- Mr X complained that the Council wrongly allowed an applicant to make modifications to a property they purchased and did not adhere to relevant tests and restrictions. He says that the applicant was not subject to the same constraints that he has faced during his past property renovations.
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:
- 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision to discharge conditions relating to a grant of planning permission. The applicant submitted details which were initially rejected. However, the applicant later resubmitted the proposal and the Council consulted an expert authority which was satisfied the appropriate conditions had been met. The Council then approved the application and discharged the condition.
- Mr X complains that he has faced restrictions for property renovations in the past that the applicant was not subject to, and the applicant has managed to evade the same restrictions to save costs, which is unjust. Mr X also says that the environmental impact of the renovation has not been considered by the Council. Mr X says that he did not try to acquire this property due to the costs associated with the restrictions he has faced when renovating properties in the past. He believes this situation is unfair, as he has now lost a commercial opportunity.
- We cannot make the same connection between what happened and any unknown effect on Mr X. He made a commercial decision to minimise his own exposure to the risk of possible losses, and accepted he would not benefit from development. Similarly, the applicant who bought the property also made a commercial decision with associated risk, and no guarantee of securing planning permission or of what the Council would approve. While the applicant has benefited from their decision, it does not mean that Mr X has experienced any injustice as a result.
- We are also not an appeal body and cannot review the Council’s decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot challenge the decision itself.
- The Council took the correct steps and consulted the appropriate statutory consultee, acting on its professional advice before it discharged the condition. The Council was entitled to rely on this advice, and I have not seen enough evidence of fault for us to question its decision.
- Mr X says the applicant has misled the Council; however, this claim does not indicate any fault in the decision-making process of the Council, which considered the information available to it at the time. Any future decision the Council might make on whether to take further action does not have any impact on Mr X.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not experienced significant personal injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman