Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to notify him of an application to extend a neighbouring property. He believes that had he known about the application sooner he may have been able to persuade the Parish Council to object.

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.

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

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 reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council received an application to extend Mr X’s neighbour’s property in 2020. It advertised the application for comments by way of a site notice. Mr X says that he and his wife were self-isolating at the time so they did see the notice; they became aware of the application later from a friend and wrote to the Parish Council asking it to object to the proposal. The Parish Council confirmed it had already made the decision not to object and had communicated this to the Council. They suggested Mr X submit his objection to the Council directly.
6. Mr X objected to the application along with several others. The Council considered the objections but found no reason to refuse the application. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and is unhappy at the way the Council dealt with his complaint.

Assessment

7. The law requires the Council to publicise planning applications by writing to adjoining neighbours or putting up a site notice. In this case the Council decided to put up a site notice and this fulfilled its obligation to inform residents who may have been affected by the proposal.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s objection and those of the other residents and the planning officer’s report explains why, in their view, the proposal was acceptable. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and it is not for us to question its judgement.
9. Mr X believes that had he known about the application sooner he could have persuaded the Parish Council to object, but this is pure speculation. There is also no guarantee that had Mr X persuaded the Parish Council to object, the Council would have refused the application.
10. Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint but it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman