Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision-making process relating to his and a neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision making on his and his neighbour’s planning application. He says the Council imposed planning conditions on his application, but not his neighbour’s. Mr X considers the Council has treated them unequally.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council decided on Mr X’s planning application more than 12 months ago. Any complaint to us about this is out of time and there is no good reason to exercise discretion. Further, Mr X had the right to appeal the Council’s decision at the time, if he was unhappy with the conditions attached. And it was reasonable for him to use this right.
9. The Council later decided on a planning application raised by Mr X’s neighbour. This did not include any planning conditions to improve access, despite Mr X being subject to such conditions previously.
10. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making on the neighbour’s application. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
1. The Council considered objections from interested parties as summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
2. The Council took into account highways advice provided by Council B.
3. Council B identified differences between the two applications and the fact they were for materially different schemes.
4. Council B did not suggest planning conditions should apply in relation to access.
5. The Council correctly noted that landownership and access rights are matters of private law between Mr X and his neighbour and not material planning considerations.
6. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X its decision on his neighbour’s application was different because the scheme was different and, the advice received from Council B was different.
11. The documents show the Council considered relevant information when making its decision and followed a proper decision-making process. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman