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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council failed to consult her about the application and the development will have a significant impact on her 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 wrote to Ms X to tell her about the application. I understand Ms X did not receive the Council’s letters. 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 neighbouring properties. However, the officer decided there would not be an unacceptable impact.
8. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected.
9. Ms X’s neighbour has also made a second application for the extension with amended plans. Ms X commented on this second application and her concerns were addressed in the case officer’s report and the acceptability of the proposal was considered by the planning committee before members voted to grant planning permission.
10. Ms X has raised concerns about the extension damaging her property and says her home will lose value. However, loss of property value is not a material planning consideration, and any claims of property damage will be a private civil matter between Ms X and her neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Ms X has also not suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council publicised the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman