Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application for extensions to a nearby property. Mr B says the Council did not notify him about the application, so he did not have the opportunity to comment. Mr B also says the Council did not give proper consideration to the impact on the amenity of his home or the character of the area. Mr B says the Council was wrong to grant the application planning permission.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 B and the Council. I also considered planning records available online.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council was not required to send a letter to Mr B about this planning application because his property does not adjoin the application site. The Council could have used its discretion to notify additional properties such as Mr B’s property. But, its decision that this was not warranted is not evidence of fault.
7. In the Council’s case report, the Council explained why it considered the impact of the development on the character of the area was acceptable.
8. The Council also explained that the properties on the road where Mr B lives are at least 30 metres away from the application site. So, the Council did not consider the impact on the amenities of these properties would be significant.
9. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision. But, I have not seen any information to suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault. The Council took relevant factors into account. Unless there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision, we cannot say the Council’s decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman