Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council deals with planning applications. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with planning applications for developments at a site near her home. Ms X says the Council is failing to properly publicise the applications and she did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposals before planning permission was granted. Ms X has also raised concerns about the impact the most recent application will have on the area.

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, 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 Ms 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. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement says it will publicise applications in line with government guidance. However, it may carry out additional consultation in certain circumstances.
6. There have been several applications for a site in the area where Ms X lives. The applications have been publicised by notices erected near the development site. Ms X says the location of the notices is not adequate and not easily seen by members of the public. However, I am satisfied the Council has publicised the applications as required and explained why it considers the location is appropriate and why it would not be necessary to write to individual residents to notify them about the developments. I understand Ms X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. The Council has also said it will consider erecting a second notice on the opposite side of the road for future applications.
7. Ms X has raised concerns about the most recent application for the site. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer referred to the impact on the area in their report before deciding the proposal was acceptable. Therefore, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and Ms X has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman