Summary: Ms X complains about the Council granting planning permission at two sites near to her property and not notifying her. There was fault by the Council as it did not notify Ms X about the planning application. However, this did not cause any significant injustice to Ms X so no remedy is necessary.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council granting planning permission at two sites (A and B) near to her property. Mrs X says:
• The Council did not notify her of either planning application.
• The building works at site A has caused damage to a shared road Ms X is responsible for along with the owners of site A. She would like to Council to pay for or reimburse her for the costs of repairing the road.
• Once site B starts to build, lorries will mistakenly turn down her drive instead of the road leading to site B.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint about the planning application for site B.
3. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about the planning application for site A, for the reasons given at the end of this statement. I have included details of the planning application decision for site A in the ‘background’ section below for context.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of this investigation, I have:
• Considered the complaint made by Ms X and the Council’s responses.
• Looked at the relevant planning documents on the Council’s website.
• Discussed the complaint with Ms X over the telephone.
• Sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. National regulations set out the procedure that Local Planning Authorities follow when consulting on a planning application. The Development Management Procedure Order 2015 regulation 15(5) says councils must publicise planning applications as follows:
• (a) by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days; or
• (b) by serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.
8. The Council’s Statement for Community Involvement says the Council will go beyond the statutory requirements for consulting on planning applications. The Council will put up a site notice and write to consult neighbouring properties.

Background

9. Ms X lives in a property which is accessed from the main road by using a private track. Site A shares part of this track. Ms X and the owners of site A share the responsibility for maintenance of the track.
10. The owners of site A applied for planning permission to put an extension onto their property. The Council granted planning permission in the summer of 2015 and building works started at the site in the autumn of 2015. Ms X only found out about the planning permission via a letter from the owners of site A before building works started.
11. Building works finished at site A in mid-2017. Ms X says lorries transporting building materials damaged not only the shared part of the track, but also the part leading up to her property. The owners of site A have put gravel down to repair the track, however, Ms X feels tarmacking the track would sufficiently repair it.
12. In late 2016 the Council granted planning permission for the demolition of the existing property and construction of a new building at site B. The application received objections from neighbours, including concerns raised about damage to a private track leading to the site from the main road. The case officer’s report shows the Council considered the impact on neighbouring properties but decided the issue about the private track was a civil matter.
13. Ms X says she found out about this application from a neighbour in May 2018. Ms X says building works have not started at this site yet.
14. In May 2018 Ms X wrote to the Council about the planning permission for sites A and B. She said the Council did not notify her about either application. In addition, the result of granting planning permission caused the track she is jointly responsible for to become damaged.
15. The Council responded to say legislation requires Councils to write to neighbours that immediately adjoin an application site or put up a site notice. The Council does both however, its records did not show why Ms X was not notified about the planning applications. The Council said this may have been due to the distance between each site and that Ms X’s property does not adjoin either site. The Council said it has no power to intervene about the shared track as this is a private matter.
16. In March 2019 Ms X raised a formal complaint to the Council and raised the following:
• She did not receive any formal notice about the proposed developments.
• The works at site A caused damage to the shared track from the main road used to access Ms X’s property and the same will happen for site B.
• She would like the Council to compensate her for the damage to the shared track or carry out repairs.
17. The Council responded to say it put up a site notice and met its statutory requirements. The repairs to the track was a private matter between Ms X and the owners of site A. The Council said it could not have considered the condition of the track when looking at planning permission.
18. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two. She said the Council should have notified her of the planning applications and erecting a site notice was inadequate.
19. The Council responded to say at the time of the applications Ms X was not identified as an adjoining owner. The Council therefore did not write to her. The repair of the track is not a matter for the Council and would be a private dispute between Ms X and the owners of site A.
20. Ms X remained dissatisfied so brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. We are not an appeal body to planning decisions. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made and, where we find fault in the process, to decide whether it caused significant injustice to the individual complainant. To find an injustice, we need evidence to show the outcome would have been different.
22. The Council did not notify Ms X about the planning application for site B however it did put up a site notice. From the information I have the shared track leading to Ms X’s property runs close to the development at site B. The Council said it did not have a reason recorded about why it did not notify Ms X about the planning application.
23. While the Council complied with the statutory requirements, it did not follow its policy to notify neighbouring properties and put up a site notice. This is fault. I must then consider whether this caused any injustice to Ms X. The obvious injustice would be that the officer’s decision would have been different had Ms X objected.
24. Based on the information available, I am not of the view the position would have been different had Ms X objected. Another resident raised concerns about a private track site B uses and the case officer’s report said this was a civil matter. Also, the Council confirmed to Ms X in its complaint response that damage to the private track leading to her property was not a matter it could have considered for planning purposes.
25. On balance, I do not consider the Council’s failure to notify Ms X about the proposed development at site B has caused her significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council as it did not notify Ms X about the site B planning application. However, this did not cause any significant injustice to Mrs X so no remedy is recommended.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about site A. The Ombudsman’s powers are subject to time limits. We do not normally investigate matters unless they are brought to our attention within 12-months from when events occurred, or the complainant could have known about them. We have discretion to go back beyond this limit but would need a good reason to do so.
28. We usually need evidence that it was not practically possible for the individual to complain at the time, for example, because they were incapacitated and had no-one to manage their affairs.
29. Ms X was aware of the planning application decision for site A from 2015 but did not bring this to the Ombudsman until 2019. I see no good reason to investigate events surrounding the 2015 planning application decision, for site A, now. Any concerns about the Council’s approval of the application could and should have been brought to our attention sooner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman