Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not been caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near a property he owns. Mr X says the Council did not notify him about the development and he lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mr X says the new extension causes loss of light and privacy to his property and has been built over his sewer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. In addition, the Council should erect a site notice or notify neighboring residents for minor developments.
6. In this case, the Council put up a site notice and sent a letter to Mr X’s property. As the Council publicised the application as required, it is unlikely I could find fault.
7. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s letter as he does not live at the property and the Council should have ensured he was aware of the application. However, even if I could say the Council should have taken further steps to contact Mr X, I cannot say he has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
8. The case officer’s report addressed the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties. The report said the proposed extension would not have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity. This was based on the position of the windows, separation distances between the properties, the orientation and height of the buildings and the existing boundary treatments. The case officer addressed the impact again in a second application to amend the approved plans. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
9. As the Council properly considered the impact of the development before granting planning permission, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X had the opportunity to raise his objections.
10. Mr X has also raised concerns about the location of the extension and says it has been built over an existing sewer and this was not considered before planning permission was granted. However, this would not be a planning matter and instead would be dealt with by building control as part of the building regulation process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman