Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council publicised two planning applications for developments near the complainant’s home. This is because he is unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused any personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained that the Council has failed to properly publicise two planning applications for developments near his home.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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 Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and I have considered the comments he has made in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Councils are required to give publicity to planning applications. The publicity required depends on the nature of the development. However, in all cases the application must be published on the Council’s website.

5. In addition, the Council must;

• erect a site notice and put a publication in a local newspaper if the proposal departs from the development plan or affects a public right of way;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours and place a publication in a local newspaper if the application is for a major development;
• erect a site notice or notify neighbours if the development is minor.

What happened

6. The Council received a planning application to build a house on the land near Mr X’s home. It notified the affected neighbours and Mr X objected to the proposal. The application was referred to the Council’s planning committee to determine and permission was granted subject to conditions.
7. Shortly after this, the Council received another application to build three houses at another site near Mr X’s home. The Council again notified the affected neighbours and Mr X objected to the proposal. The Council has not yet determined this application.
8. Mr X has complained about how the Council publicised the applications. He argues that both proposals depart from the Council’s development plan and therefore it should have put up a site notice and published a notice in the local paper. Mr X argues that properly publicising an application is important as it may lead to comments and evidence which shows a proposal, that may otherwise be given permission, is unacceptable.

Assessment

9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the publicity the Council gave two planning applications for sites near his home. This is as it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council and Mr X has not been caused any personal injustice.
10. The Town and Country Planning Act sets out the publicity required for planning applications. Mr X says the Council should have placed a site and newspaper notice to publicise the applications as the proposals both depart from the Council’s development plan. He argues the application sites are located outside the area where new development is allowed. He says it cannot be known if any of the policy exceptions allowing development outside the general development area will apply until an application is determined. The Council disagrees. It says the applications do not depart from its development plan as there are policies that could apply to the proposals. It says it will only consider an application as a departure from the development plan if the application is not covered by any policy. I understand Mr X does not agree, but the Council has explained why it did not consider additional publicly necessary in the circumstances. As the Council properly considered the matter before deciding the publicity required for the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Furthermore, even if it could be shown that the Council should have treated the application as a departure from its development plan and placed a site and newspaper notice, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any personal injustice. He was notified about both developments and was able to raise his objections before the applications were determined.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council and Mr X has not been caused any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman