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 with how the Council publicised the application. The complainant has also not been caused any 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 his home. Mr X says he was not told about the application and the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his property.

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. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions, instead we consider if there was any fault with how a decision was made.
6. Mr X has complained the Council did not tell him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. 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 is published on the council’s website. Council’s must also erect a site notice or notify the residents of neighbouring properties for minor developments.
7. In this case, the Council erected a site notice. Mr X says it should have contacted him to tell him about the application. But there was no requirement for it to do so. As the Council publicised the planning application as required it is unlikely I would find fault in this regard.
8. Mr X has also complained the Council failed to properly assess the impact on his amenity. He says there is no reference to his home in the case officer’s report and the officer did not visit his property to assess the application. Mr X says the new balcony will increase overlooking and the Council failed to consider this.
9. There is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties when considering planning applications and the impact of a proposed development can often be assessed from the application site. The Council has accepted the case officer’s report does not refer to the impact on Mr X’s home and has apologised that the officer’s full reasoning was not set out in the report. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has explained why it does not consider there will be an unacceptable impact on Mr X’s property. It says due to the position of the balcony and distance from Mr X’s home, the impact of the development would not warrant refusal of the application. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. Therefore, while I understand Mr X disagrees, it is unlikely the planning decision would have been different had the case officer’s report provided further detail or if Mr X had objected to the application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with how the Council publicised the planning application. Mr X has also not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman