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.

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 did not notify her about the development until after the planning application had been granted and she therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mrs X says the development will cause a significant loss of privacy to 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 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 has accepted it did not notify Mrs X about the application as it should have. However, I do not consider Mrs X has suffered significant injustice as a result of the Council’s error.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring properties but decided there would not be a detrimental impact on the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, outlook or overlooking. The Council further addressed the impact on Mrs X’s home in response to her complaint. It said that due to the distance between Mrs X’s home and the extension there would not be a loss of privacy.
7. I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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 sooner and had the opportunity to object to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman