Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council publicised a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we order the Council to reconsider an approved planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to tell him about a planning application for an extension of a development across the road from a block of flats he owns. He says a site notice was fixed to a lamp post by the site, but he believes it was removed before many people had seen it.
2. He says the development will block out the light, cause privacy issues and will be out of keeping with the Conservation Area.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:
• reconsider the application; and
• change its procedure for publicising planning applications

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s responses to his complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the relevant planning legislation.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the development. But we do not provide a right of appeal against such decisions. We will consider whether any alleged fault in the process is likely to have affected the decision.
8. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by:
• newspaper advertisement
• and/or site notice
• and/or neighbour notification

These requirements are in The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

9. The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to ‘make representations’ is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not start a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
10. In this case, the Council confirms:
• a site notice was erected at the site
• the application was advertised in the local press; and
• details were placed on its website.

The Council therefore met the statutory requirements for publicising the planning application.

11. 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 have considered:
• The Council met the statutory obligations to publicise the application (two representations comments came from residents at Mr X’s development).
• The case officer report shows the Council considered the relevant policies and representations received.
• The application was considered by the planning committee and two members of the public spoke. Following a debate, the committee voted to approve the application with conditions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we require the Council to reconsider an approved planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman