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 a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he therefore lost the opportunity to object. Mr X says the development will overlook his property and cause a loss of privacy.

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 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 erected a site notice but did not write to Mr X to tell him about the development as his property does not adjoin the development site. Mr X disputes this and says he should have been consulted about the application.
6. However, even if the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr 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 the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact. The Council also explained further in response to Mr X’s complaint why it did not consider the development would significantly harm the amenity of his property.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the application, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the development and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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