Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the Council failed to notify her about the proposal and she lost the opportunity to object. Ms X says the new extension will have a significant impact on her 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. For developments such as this, the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says it will write to the residents of the neighbouring properties or erect a site notice.
6. The Council says it wrote to Ms X to tell her about the application and invited her to make comments. Ms X disputes this and says she did not receive any correspondence from the Council.
7. I cannot know for certain why Ms X did not receive the Council’s letter. However, even if I could say the Council did not send the letter as Ms X believes, I cannot say she 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 will have a limited impact on Ms X’s property and will be acceptable in terms of possible loss of light, overlooking and overbearing. I understand Ms X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement.
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 Ms X had the opportunity to raise her objections.
10. Ms X has raised concerns about the impact the extension will have on the party wall. She has also said her neighbour is intending to make a further application to amend the approved plans. However, the application to revise the plans is still pending. Therefore, I cannot yet say if Ms X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard as the Council may refuse the application. Concerns about the party wall will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman