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 has dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the Council failed to consult local residents and she therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Ms X says the Council did not properly assess the impact of the development and the application contained incorrect information. Ms X has also complained the development being built is different to the building proposed.

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 wrote to residents to tell them about the application. I understand Ms X 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 Ms X has suffered significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council assessed 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 development would not cause overlooking or loss of privacy. The impact on flooding was also considered before the case officer decided the proposal was acceptable. The case officer consulted the drainage board, and no objections were raised subject to an informative advising the applicant further consent is needed in relation to drainage for any construction within nine metres of a watercourse.
8. I understand Ms 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 be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected to the proposal.
9. Ms X has also raised concerns that the development is not being built in line with the approved plans. However, Ms X should contact the Council’s enforcement department if she is concerned about a possible planning breach.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman