The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application with which Mr X has been concerned. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council failed to obtain a key document for a planning application before validating the application and inviting the public to comment on it. He says the application should have been resubmitted and that when the Council re-consulted the public once the document had been received, it should have made clear why it was re-consulting.
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 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 the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
A planning applicant for development in Mr X’s locale submitted a new application after their initial application had been refused. The Council validated the second application and invited public comments on it.
Missing from the second application was the updated Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which Mr X drew to the attention of officers. The updated LVIA was later received and the Council re-consulted.
The Council considered Mr X’s complaint about its handling of these matters and addressed the various queries he raised. However, it did not uphold his complaint.
It explained that the lack of the LVIA would not have been grounds to refuse to validate the application and that when it reconsults, as it did in this case following receipt of the LVIA, it does not have the resources to send out bespoke letters detailing each individual change when re-consultation takes place. It also pointed out that if a member of the public was unsure about the changes, they could call and speak to an officer. Mr X was aware of the changes and was able to submit his comments having had sight of the updated LVIA.
We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr X may not be satisfied with the outcome of his complaint to the Council, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman