Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about a planning application for a development which he says encroaches on his boundary. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised and determined the application, and the delay in the Council’s complaint process has not caused the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not send a letter to notify him about his neighbour’s planning application for a single storey side extension. He says the Council should not have granted planning permission when it was aware there was an ongoing boundary dispute, and it delayed in responding to his subsequent complaint.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

3. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a planning application. And 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)
4. All decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations relate to the use and development of land in the public interest, and not to private considerations such as the boundary disputes, party wall matters, or the reduction in the value of a property.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including their complaint correspondence.
6. I also considered the planning application documents on the Council’s website and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said it had checked its system and is satisfied a notification letter was sent to Mr X. I accept Mr X says he did not receive the 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. Furthermore, there was no requirement for the Council to delay the determination of the application when it became aware Mr X had not received the letter, nor was it required to visit Mr X’s property. So, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in respect of this part of Mr X’s complaint to justify us considering it further.
8. Although Mr X did not receive his notification letter, he was still able to submit objections, including representations from his surveyor. The case officer’s report on the application notes and summarises Mr X’s submissions, and goes on to correctly explain that the boundary dispute between him and his neighbour was not a material planning consideration. Similarly, any concerns about party wall matters, access rights, maintenance, the future intentions of the applicant, property values, or disruption during construction, would not have been material planning considerations either.
9. The Council was therefore entitled to proceed with determining the application, despite the ongoing boundary dispute, and I see no evidence of procedural fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission.
10. Finally, whilst I acknowledge it took the Council approximately six months to prepare its Stage 2 complaint response, I am not persuaded that any resultant injustice to Mr X is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council publicised and determined the application, and the delay in providing the Stage 2 response has not caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman