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 about how the Council dealt with an application to amend the plans for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not notify him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to object. Mr X says the structure being built is too close to his home and compromises his security. He also says the development affects his views and will devalue his property.
2. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint and says his concerns have not been taken seriously.

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:

• 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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. The Council’s statement of Community Involvement says it will publicise applications in line with the statutory requirements.
6. The Council says it wrote to residents to tell them about the application. Mr X disputes this and says he did not receive the Council’s letter. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as Mr X believes, I do not consider he has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the changes to the plans, including the impact of the new structure near Mr X’s home. The case officer’s report said the development would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or privacy. The case officer also decided the proposed structure would not cause adverse noise impacts. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained why it did not consider the development would compromise Mr X’s security and loss of value is not a material planning matter.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the proposal was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting permission, it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.
9. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman