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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council failed to notify him about a planning application for a residential development near his home. Mr X says the proposed development will affect the wellbeing of local residents and he lost the opportunity to raise his concerns before permission was granted.

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 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))

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. 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. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says for major developments it will also send consultation letters to the residents of the properties adjacent to the application site and erect notices at appropriate locations.
6. In this case, the Council says it wrote to residents, including Mr X, put up three site notices and advertised the development in a local newspaper. Mr X disputes this and says he did not receive a letter from the Council. He also says he did not see any site notices and not many people read the local newspaper used by the Council.
7. However, even if it could be said the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider that Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the principle of the development before granting outline planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on the area and neighboring properties and the officer decided the principle of the development would not have an adverse impact. The acceptability of the proposal was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant permission. The impact of the development will also be considered further as part of a reserved matters application.
9. I understand Mr X may disagree, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable.
10. As the Council properly considered the outline planning application it is likely the decision to grant permission would have been the same had Mr X known about the proposal sooner and had the opportunity to object.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman