Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly publicise a planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to notify him of a planning application for a development to the rear of his property. He is concerned about the impact of the proposed extractor fans on his amenity.

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 an investigation if we decide, for example, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including the complaint correspondence. I also looked at information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
4. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The law requires the Council to publicise this type of application by:

• displaying a site notice in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates; or
• serving notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. There is no requirement that notification letters are sent by registered post or hand delivered.

The Council chooses to use both publicity methods.

6. It says it sent a notification letter to Mr X’s address, as well as other properties in his and an adjoining road. One of these letters was returned to the Council by Royal Mail, for a property on the adjoining road. It erected the site notice at the entrance to the application site on the adjoining road.
7. There is evidence the Council sent the notification letters because one was returned as undeliverable. I accept Mr X did not receive his letter, but this could be because Royal Mail failed to deliver it. We cannot hold the Council responsible for such an error, and I have no other independent means of establishing why Mr X did not receive his letter.
8. And whilst I appreciate Mr X thinks a second notice should have been erected at the rear of the site, on his road, there was no requirement for the Council to do this. So, I do not find fault by the Council here either.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr’Xs complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman