Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s use of site notices to publicise planning applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we could not say its actions caused Miss X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council failed to meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and its own Equality Policy in consulting residents on her neighbour’s planning application. She says that as a result she could not comment on the application and will be unable to negotiate with her neighbour to resolve her concerns about the development.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. The law requires the Council to consult on applications for planning permission. It allows the Council to do this by sending letters to neighbours or by putting up site notices. The Council has decided to use site notices to publicise applications, as many other local authorities do, and this fulfils its obligation under the law.
5. It is unfortunate that Miss X did not see the site notices as a result of issues with her mobility but we could not say this was the result of fault by the Council or that it caused her significant injustice. This is because the Council was still required to consider the impact of her neighbour’s development on her property and it decided the impact was not so harmful that it warranted refusal. While Miss X may have objected to the application, had she known about it sooner, we could not say this would have led to the Council refusing the application as the relevant considerations remained the same.
6. Miss X believes that had the Council told her about the application sooner she would have been able to negotiate with her neighbour, but this is not the role of the planning process. Her neighbour applied for planning permission to develop their property and it was the Council’s duty to decide if the proposal was acceptable. It decided it was and it is therefore highly unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that Miss X would have persuaded her neighbour to alter their design.
7. Miss X also raises concerns about her right to light but this is a legal issue, rather than a planning consideration. She may therefore wish to obtain legal advice about making a claim against her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Miss X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman