Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to notify residents about the application and he lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on the area and has caused parking problems.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

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 accepts the original notification letters were not sent to neighbouring residents as they should have been. However, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result of this error.
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 the conservation area and neighbouring properties. The report also considered the impact the development would have on the highway and the acceptability of the proposed parking arrangements.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected to the proposal.
9. Mr X has also complained about ongoing parking problems and says parking spaces are being blocked. However, issues relating to parking enforcement will be for the county council. Mr X says the issues have been caused by the development. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered if the parking arrangements for the site were suitable and in line with its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman