Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council publicised a planning application for a site opposite one he owned and intended to build on. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council so the matter does not warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council publicised a planning application for development on land opposite a plot he owned and had permission to build on. He says the Council should have notified him of the application, and it failed to consider the effect of the proposed development on the house he was about to build.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I considered the complainant’s comments on a draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says that the Council did not notify him of a planning application in 2018 for a development of houses opposite a site he owned with permission to build a new house. The law says publicity for this type of application should include either:
• a site notice; or
• serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
7. The Council says as Mr X’s property was on the opposite side of the road it did not adjoin the application site and did not meet the criteria for personal notification. The Council’s position is not unique and does not amount to fault; in plain terms if a road separates two properties they do not adjoin. The fact Mr X thinks the Council ought to have done more is not evidence of fault.
8. The Council has provided evidence it put up a site notice, but Mr X says it was too far from the application site to meet the test of being ‘near’ the site. Mr X says the notice was 150m away, but the site location plan shows part of the site was only 10m from where the notice was. We could not say on the facts the Council was at fault. Beyond that only a court can decide Mr X’s dispute about whether the notice was near enough to the site to comply with the law and council policy.
9. Mr X says the Council should have given more consideration to the effect of the proposed development on his proposed house. The Council disagrees and points out that Mr X’s house was not built at the time of the planning application. The Council was aware of the existence of Mr X’s planning permission as it is referred to in the officer report for the development opposite. However, the Council is correct to say Mr X’s house did not exist at the time, nor would the Council have to consider the effect of proposed houses on other houses opposite where both front a public highway and there is no presumption of privacy. On the facts, we could not say the Council is at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council so investigation is not warranted.
     

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman