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 his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mr X says the development has a significant impact on light to his garden.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr 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 says it wrote to neighbouring residents, including Mr X, but did not receive any comments. I understand Mr X disputes this. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
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 Mr X’s home but decided the development would not cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had Mr X known about the application and objected to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman