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 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 consult residents about the application and he therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development is not in line with the Council’s guidance and it will have a significant impact on 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 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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case, the Council says it erected site notices and placed a notice in a local paper. Mr X says he should have been notified about the development as he is an immediate neighbour. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr 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 and the character of the area, before granting planning permission. The case officer referred to the part of the Council’s design guide that the proposal did not comply with and explained why the development would still be acceptable. The case officer also said the proposal would not result in a significant loss of outlook or light to the neighbouring properties. The Council further addressed the impact on Mr X’s property in response to his complaint and said his home would not be materially affected by the proposal due to the distance between his property and the application site.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development it is likely the planning decision would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected to the proposal.

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