The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a supported-living facility proposal close to the complainant’s home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to adequately communicate with him over a 15-month period between the initial community engagement on a proposed supported-living scheme and its decision on the associated planning application. Mr X says his health and the lives of his family have been affected as a result.
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 directly 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence, the report presented to the 9 March 2021 Cabinet meeting about the scheme, information about the planning application and the Development Control Committee meeting on the Council’s website, and our Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X was very worried and had questions about this proposed development close to his home, and was frustrated by the length of time it took to determine the planning application.
However, I find there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation into his concerns. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that: The planning application was ultimately refused.
Government guidance encourages planning authorities to proactively engage with applicants, so it was open to the Council’s Planning department to seek amendments and further information during its consideration of the proposal. The overall time taken to determine the application was not uncommon given the nature of the scheme, and I note the Council arranged a separate Development Control Committee meeting to avoid unnecessary delay in reaching a decision.
The Council complied with its statutory obligations for publicising the planning application, and I understand Mr X also attended a meeting with the applicant, Council officers, and the responsible Portfolio holder and Cabinet member to discuss the proposal.
The report to the Development Control Committee contained fifteen pages detailing the objections to the proposal and went on to assess the relevant material planning considerations.
The Housing and Property departments were entitled to support the proposal in pursuit of the Council’s strategic objectives to improve accommodation and support for homeless people in the Borough, even if Mr X disagrees with the position these departments adopted. The report to the March 2021 Cabinet meeting, which was available to the public, set out the background to the Council’s involvement in supporting the scheme.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman