Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of a planning application for a development behind his home. He complained about the way the Council advertised the application, mistakes on the application documents and the Council’s decision to approve the application. Mr X said he was concerned about the impact of the development on existing homeowners, and to the value of their properties. He would like the Council to pay compensation to rectify this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. How I considered this complaint
5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered information available on the Council’s planning portal.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council granted planning permission for a development behind Mr X’s home in 2022. Mr X said the Council did not write to neighbours about the planning application and that site notices were not left up for a sufficient period.
9. Mr X objected to the application. Therefore, I am satisfied he knew about the planning application and any alleged fault has not caused him a significant personal injustice as he engaged with the consultation process. In addition, the Council confirmed it publicised the application in the press and put up a site notice. The Council received objections from other people. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
10. Mr X complained that there were factual inaccuracies on the planning application documents. We only expect a Council to consider the information that it is presented with. In this case, the case officer’s report demonstrates the Council considered all the evidence available to them. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
11. I understand that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider the merits of an officer’s decision or to question the officer’s professional judgement, unless there is evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. The Council considered objections from neighbours as well as planning policy. It decided the benefits of the development outweighed any potential harm. The Council is entitled to use professional judgement when making this decision. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way that the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman