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

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a breach of planning control. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property and has not been built in line with the approved plans.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.
6. In this case, the Council accepts it did not notify residents about the application as it should have. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council still properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The Council also explained in response to Mr X’s complaint why it did not consider the development would have a significant impact on his home.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.
9. Mr X says the development has not been built in line with the approved plans. Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a breach.
10. The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns and agreed there had been a planning breach. However, it decided it would not be expedient to take enforcement action. This was a decision it was entitled to make, and the Council explained why it did not consider it necessary to take formal action. As the Council properly considered if it should take formal enforcement action it is unlikely I would find fault.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman