Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Planning Authority dealt with an application for a development near the complainant’s property. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. The complainant also has not been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Planning Authority dealt with an application for a development near his property. He says the Authority did not publicise the application as it should have, and the development will cause loss of light and privacy.

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 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 Authority’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
5. Planning authorities 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 authority’s website.
6. In addition, it 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

7. The Planning Authority received an application to extend a house located near a property owned by Mr X. The Council considered the application and granted permission subject to conditions. Mr X found out about the development after the application had been determined. He contacted the Authority to complain as he did not receive a letter telling him about the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with a planning application. This is because I am unlikely to find fault.
9. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property. However, the case officer addressed the impact on residential amenity in their report before deciding the proposal was acceptable. The report said the development will not cause amenity issues, be overbearing or cause a loss of light. I understand Mr X disputes this and says the Authority wrongly believed his property was a single dwelling instead of four separate properties. But the case officer visited the site and so would have been aware of the relationship between the properties and the application site. As the Authority properly considered the application before granting planning permission it is unlikely I could find fault.
10. Mr X says he was not notified about the application. But the Authority erected a notice near the development site, and it did not need to also write to the residents of the neighbouring properties. As the Authority properly publicised the application it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X disagrees and says the site notice was placed in an inappropriate location. But even if I could say the Council did not advertise the application as it should have, I could not say Mr X has been caused significant injustice. The Council did still properly consider the application, including the impact on Mr X’s property, before granting permission. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X raised objections.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant also has not been caused significant injustice by the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman