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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to consult him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the residents of the properties adjoining the application site, including Mr X. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s letter. 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 application before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring properties. However, the officer decided the development would not adversely impact the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. 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 any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman