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 and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

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 planning officers failed to answer his questions and dismissed his concerns. Mr X also says the Council did not tell him the application had been referred to the planning committee for determination and he therefore lost the opportunity to speak and raise his objections at the meeting.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says the case officer failed to properly respond to the questions he raised about the application, and he was not told about the planning committee meeting. However, the case officer did not need to respond to all the objections received in relation to the proposed development. This was made clear in the notification letter sent to Mr X telling him about the application. There was also no requirement for the Council to contact Mr X individually and tell him about the planning committee meeting.
5. I understand Mr X disagrees. But even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider that Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result. Mr X’s objections were summarised in the case officer’s report and would have been available to committee members. The case officer’s report also addressed the concerns raised by Mr X, including the impact on his amenity, before deciding the proposal was acceptable in planning terms. The acceptability of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant permission.
6. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant permission would be the same had Mr X spoken at the committee meeting or received additional responses to his questions.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X has also not been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman