Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. 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 Ms X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says it failed to notify her about the application and she lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on her property and affect local wildlife.

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:

• 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 Ms 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 a site notice was erected. Ms X says the notice was not placed in an appropriate location and the Council should have written to the affected residents.
6. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report addressed the impact on Ms X’s property and biodiversity. The report said the proposal had been designed to prevent harmful overlooking and loss of privacy and would respect neighbouring amenities. The planning permission was also subject to a condition which required the developer to comply with an Environmental Assessment Report.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s 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 Ms X known about the application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman