The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to consider legal advice and case law when determining planning applications for developments near to sports playing areas. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the earlier applications and, in any case, there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused him a significant personal injustice.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council failed to consider legal advice and case law regarding the proximity of developments to sports playing areas when it determined planning applications at a site in his local area.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended) We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) And 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included an update on the status of the complaint.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The time-restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above appears to apply to parts of Mr X’s complaint. This is because one of the applications being complained about was approved in July 2019, and another in November 2022, yet Mr X did not contact the Ombudsman until March 2024. I see no reasons why he was prevented from contacting us sooner, so we will not exercise discretion to investigate these parts of the complaint now.
Furthermore, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures of the Council. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising something of general concern to the wider community but where they have not suffered injustice.
Whilst I appreciate Mr X might be concerned about the safety of people using/visiting the development sites, I do not see that he is personally and seriously affected by the approved developments themselves. So, the Ombudsman would not investigate his complaint for this reason too.
Finally, two of the applications were approved at appeal by PINS, and not by the Council. So, any claimed injustice would flow from the decisions by PINS, and not from the alleged faults by the Council in considering those applications. We have no power to investigate the decisions of PINS.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner about the earlier applications and, in any case, there is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused him a significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman