Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Authority dealt with her neighbour’s retrospective planning application. Ms X says the Authority failed to follow the proper processes and did not consider her concerns about ownership of the development site.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a retrospective planning application to the Authority. Ms X objected to the application and said the development had been built on her land without permission. However, it is not for the Authority to get involved in land ownership disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour. I am also satisfied the Authority properly looked into Ms X’s concerns about land ownership. It considered the information Ms X provided and took steps to try and establish who owned the land to ensure the correct ownership certificate was submitted with the application.
5. Ms X has complained about how the application was dealt with and says there were delays and resident’s objections were not published on the Authority’s website. Ms X also says the application should have been referred to the planning committee for determination.
6. The Authority has explained why it did not publish some of the objections it received. It has also said it did not receive enough planning objections for referral to the committee. However, even if I did consider there was fault by the Authority in this regard, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result. She did comment on the proposal and her objections were summarised and addressed in the case officer’s report. I am also satisfied the case officer properly considered the acceptability of the development. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had the application been referred to the committee for determination. Ms X has complained about how long it took the Council to decide the application. However, I do not consider the injustice suffered because of any delays significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Authority. Ms X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman