Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to notify him about the application as he was still able to comment on it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has granted planning permission for a new development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he did not have enough time to comment on the Council’s officer report before the application was considered by a planning committee.
2. Mr X says the new development will cause an increase in traffic on an unlisted road which runs past his property. He says the Council has included land he owns in its assessment of the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was able to submit his comments on the planning application and so any failure by the Council to notify him about it has not caused him an injustice.
8. There is no obligation on the Council to allow local people time to comment on an officer report before it is put to the planning committee. The committee must consider the report as well as any other comments made about the application and any comments made during the meeting by people speaking for and against any development. Therefore, there is no evidence fault in the Council only making the case officer report available 5 days prior to the meeting.
9. There is also no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the impact of the development on local highways. This is a small development and the Council considered comments by Highways Authority in reaching its decision. The Council has acknowledged speed limits on the road connected to the unlisted road which allows access but says the nature of the road means vehicle speeds are “naturally low”. There is no evidence that the Council has taken account of any land used owned by Mr X in reaching its decision. Mr X may disagree with the Council’s assessment of the impact of the development on local highways but in the absence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to grant planning permission. Mr X was not caused an injustice as a result of the Council’s failure to notify him about the application as he was still able to comment on it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman