Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning notification and decision on a development next to his business premises. Errors in the notification process did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X warranting investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X runs a business in a town centre, next to a property which received planning permission as a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO). He complains the Council:
1. failed to properly notify him of the original planning application and a subsequent amended application;
2. failed to take account of the impacts of the new development on his business premises.
2. Mr X says the development will cause loss of privacy to several rooms in his business premises and an adverse impact on the safety of the emergency escape route. He wants the Council to pay for the installation of triple glazing in all the windows in his property affected by the new development, to maintain sound and visual privacy, and an independent investigation of the planning process and decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The development site was the subject of two planning notification processes. The Council considered the first notification responses and the developer submitted amendments to the plans seeking to resolve material objections. The Council accepts it made errors in the notification process which meant Mr X did not receive written notifications, or received them late. It has apologised to Mr X for these errors. In any event, Mr X was able to submit his objections within the normal consultation periods. So there is insufficient personal injustice caused to Mr X by the planning notification issue to warrant us investigating.
7. Mr X considers the development will cause loss of privacy to several rooms, compromise the safety of his premises’ emergency escape route and result in smoke from residents on the roof terrace drifting into some rooms. The Council planning officer’s report considered Mr X’s and all other submitted objections. The developer’s amended plans added a screen on the roof terrace to reduce its impact on Mr X’s property. The Council’s planning and Environmental Health officers considered the screen reduced the planning harm caused by the roof terrace. Officers considered the overlooking and loss of privacy impacts from the development but determined they did not give reason to refuse the development as amended. They explained Mr X’s issue regarding the emergency escape route was not a material planning matter. Officers noted this would be a Building Regulations issue which would be considered by the relevant officers. They took the view that the issues Mr X raised, and other matters raised by others, did not give grounds for them to refuse the application.
8. We may only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and were it not for that fault a different outcome would have been reached. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process here to warrant an investigation. Officers considered the relevant material planning issues when reaching their professional judgement decision to grant the permission. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• errors in the planning notification processes did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mr X warranting an investigation; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman