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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council failed to tell her about the application and she lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Ms X says the development has a significant impact on her property and work is being carried out outside the permitted hours.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 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 notified Ms X about the application. Ms X disputes this. But even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the surrounding properties and the area. However, the officer decided there would not be a material impact on neighbouring amenity.
8. The Council has also visited the site and said the development is in line with the approved plans. It said some work has been carried out that was not part of the planning application which may cause some additional overlooking into Ms X’s garden. However, this work was permitted development and therefore did not require planning approval.
9. Ms X has raised concerns about her property being damaged by the development. But this will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.
10. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the development was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected.
11. Ms X has complained about noise from the development and said building work is taking place outside the permitted hours. However, there is no planning condition restricting when building work can be carried out. The decision notice did include an informative advising the site owner that working outside of certain hours could lead to action from the environmental protection team. But the Council has confirmed it has not received a complaint about noise from the site. Ms X can contact the Council’s environmental protection department if she is concerned about ongoing noise issues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman