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.

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 the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have, and he lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal before planning permission was granted. Mr X says the development will impact his property.

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. In this case, a site notice was erected but the Council accepts the notice was not placed in an appropriate location and was not visible from public land as it should have been.
6. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council still properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer consulted the Council’s conservation officer who supported the proposal subject to some suggested planning conditions. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has also further explained why it does not consider there will be a significant impact on his property.
7. I understand Mr X may disagree with the decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the proposal and objected.
8. Mr X has also raised concerns about additional work being carried out outside of the development site. If Mr X believes unauthorised development is taking place he can contact the Council’s enforcement team and it will consider if there has been a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman