Summary: Mr X complained the Council’s failure to correct a Design and Access Statement prevented him from challenging a planning proposal effectively. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to correct a Design and Access Statement (DAS) for a hotel development next to his home. He says this meant he could not object to the application effectively and the Council made a flawed decision as a result. He also says this led to a loss of faith in the planning process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. In October 2017 a developer applied for full planning permission to build a hotel behind Mr X’s apartment block. The developer supplied a DAS and other documentation to support the application. The DAS included some drawing annotations and accompanying text which had incorrect measurements for the distance between the hotel and Mr X’s accommodation.
5. Mr X filed objections to the planning proposal based on the information in the DAS. Mr X was concerned the building would affect his amenity in terms of light and overlooking. Mr X says if he had been aware the measurements were wrong, he would have given different comments.
6. The Council says it did not rely on the DAS annotations and accompanying text when assessing the proposal. It accepted the planning proposal in June 2018.
7. The Council acknowledges the public are likely to have relied on the DAS to understand the planning proposal and has apologised for not correcting the document. It does not consider correcting the documents would have altered the outcome of its assessment.
8. The Council’s report on the proposal shows it considered the issues raised by Mr X in his objection. This included the issue of distance between Mr X’s apartment block and the hotel and its effect on his amenity. The report includes the correct distance measurements.
9. The result of the error in the DAS is the hotel is 1.25m-2.8m closer than Mr X expected. The planning process allows a valuable opportunity for the public to comment on local developments. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do not consider the error to be significant enough that Mr X could have offered comments to alter the Council’s view. There is insufficient evidence that Mr X suffered significant injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman