Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to notify the complainant about planning applications on a neighbouring site. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault in the Council’s handling of the applications that is likely to have affected the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to adequately publicise planning applications on a neighbouring site. In particular, he says he did not receive notification letters on four occasions, and did not see any site notices.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. And we cannot question whether an organisation’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 X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and the planning documents for each application on the Council’s planning portal.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Whilst I recognise Mr X might disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for his neighbour’s development, we do not provide a right of appeal against such decisions. Rather, our main role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We will consider whether any alleged fault in the process is likely to have affected the outcome. If we conclude the outcome is likely to have been the same, then the complainant will usually be deemed not to have suffered an injustice.
7. In this case, I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council handled the neighbour’s planning applications that is likely to have affected the eventual planning outcome. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• It is possible Royal Mail failed to deliver the notification letters which the Council says were sent to Mr X. We cannot hold the Council responsible for such third-party errors, and I have no other independent means of establishing why Mr X did not receive his letters.
• Councils have discretion in whether they choose to inform other interested parties about non-material amendment applications.
• When neighbour notification letters are required for a particular application, councils will normally only send these to properties with boundaries which adjoin the application site.
• Mr X was able to submit representations on the application originally submitted in September 2021, and the subsequent amendment, and his comments are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• The officer reports demonstrate the relevant material planning considerations have been taken into account when each of the applications were determined.
8. The Ombudsman will therefore not start an investigation, because the alleged faults have not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is nothing to suggest fault has affected the planning outcome, so he has not been caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman