Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X has complained on behalf of Mr Y about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the Council failed to notify Mr Y about the application and the development will have a significant impact on the character of the area and Mr Y’s property.

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 Mrs 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 says it wrote to Mr Y to notify him about the application. I do not know why Mr Y did not receive this letter. But even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr Y has suffered significant injustice as a result.
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 area and neighbouring properties. The report said the development would not adversely impact the character of the area and would not cause undue harm to neighbouring properties. The Council also explained further in response to Mrs X’s complaint why it did not consider there would be an unacceptable impact on Mr Y’s home.
8. I understand Mrs 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 have been the same had Mr Y known about the application and objected to the proposal.
9. Mrs X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr Y has also not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman