Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning processes when granting permission for a development in his area. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the notification process to warrant investigation. The matters complained of do not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in an area where the Council granted planning permission for the construction of commercial development on a business park. He complains the Council:
1. failed to correctly consult residents about the development during the planning process;
2. failed to follow due process when making its planning decision;
3. made a decision which breaches the local planning framework and neighbourhood plan.
2. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on residents and affects nearby ancient woodland, heritage assets and a wildlife park.
3. Mr X wants the Council to revoke the planning permission and issue an immediate stop notice to the developers until it has done what he considers to be proper due consultation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the Council’s planning notification process, which he considers was insufficient. The Council says it sent letters to many nearby residents’ properties. This did not include Mr X’s property because it does not border the development site and is some distance from it. Officers say the Council also posted site notices and put a notification in the local press. The Council notified in line with the requirements of national planning policy and went beyond the requirements by directly notifying nearby residents. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s notification process here to warrant an investigation of it.
7. Mr X’s complaint to the Council about its planning process is that there was lack of detail in the applications regarding the buildings’ heights. He considers the buildings are too high and large. He also queries whether the Council used the correct ground levels. The Council says the detail provided to officers by the applicant was appropriate and sufficient for them to make their decision. The Council considers the scale of the buildings and their suitability for the location is a matter of planning judgement and they disagree with Mr X’s opinion. On inspection of the ground levels, planning enforcement officers found they were slightly lower than planned. They determined that within the context of the development this did not give them grounds for enforcement action, which is a discretionary power for officers to decide when to use.
8. Even if there has been Council fault in the planning application and enforcement processes here, we will not investigate. Mr X lives over 200 metres from the development, with buildings and vegetation between his property and the site within that separation distance. There is no impact on his property caused by the development as permitted and built which amounts to a significant personal injustice to him. We note Mr X says the development has had impacts on other residents. But any such impacts on other people are not Mr X’s own injustice. We recognise he considers the development has affected nearby land and heritage assets. But Mr X is not more significantly affected by this than any other resident. The impacts he claims from the matters complained of do not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to him which justifies us investigating.
9. Mr X wants the Council to revoke the planning permission it granted to the applicant and for it to stop the development. We cannot order councils to withdraw a granted permission, nor order them to enforce to halt a development. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning notification process to warrant an investigation; and
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him by the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the complaint outcomes Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman