Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and she lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mrs X says the development will have a significant impact on her home.

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 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 Mrs 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 says it sent letters to residents and a site notice was erected. Mrs X disputes this and says she did not receive a letter from the Council and residents did not find out about the development until a second application was made to amend the approved plans.
6. However, even if I could say the Council failed to properly publicise the application, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The Council decided the impact of the development would not be significantly harmful to neighbouring amenities and the impact on neighbouring properties would not warrant the refusal of the application.
8. Mrs X says the Council failed to consider previous applications made for the site. However, each application will be considered on its own merits and the case officer addressed the suitability of the site for the development in their report. I understand Mrs 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 acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X known about the application and objected.
9. Mrs X has also raised concerns about the application made to vary the approved plans. She says the application was validated even though the Council was aware residents did not know about the original application for the site. However, this application was withdrawn before it was determined by the Council. Therefore, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how it was dealt with.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman