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 a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and he lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mr X says the loss of a heritage asset has not been justified and the Council has failed to consider the impact the development will have on the conservation area and wildlife.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

0. there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
1. any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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, the Council erected a site notice and sent letters to the residents of neighbouring properties. Mr X says this was not adequate and the site notice was taken down before the end of the consultation period.
6. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has been caused significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the conservation area and wildlife, before granting planning permission. The officer also considered the loss of trees and the harm that would be caused by the loss of the heritage asset. However, the officer decided that when weighing the harm against the benefit of the development it would be acceptable. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council addressed his concerns about the state of the building due to be demolished as part of the scheme and said there was no evidence it was deliberately neglected or damaged. The Council also said it did not rely on the state of repair when considering the acceptability of the proposal.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees 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 application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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