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. The complainant has also not suffered 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 the Council failed to tell him about amendments to the plans and he therefore lost the opportunity to object to the changes. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his privacy.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
6. Mr X says the Council should have told him about changes to the development plans. However, I am satisfied the Council considered if residents should be reconsulted following the changes and the case officer’s report explained why they did not consider this necessary. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to decide that further consultation was not needed, and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered if further consultation with neighbours was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.
7. Furthermore, even if I could say the Council should have told Mr X about changes to the plans, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice as a result. The case officer’s report considered the acceptability of the amended development, including the impact on neighbouring properties. The Council also addressed the impact on Mr X’s home in response to his complaint and said the additional windows would not cause sufficient harm to justify the refusal of the application.
8. The case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X been told about the amended plans.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman