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.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and he had less time to comment on the proposal.

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 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 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. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application and sent the notification letter to the wrong address. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
7. Mr X did still know about the application and had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The case officer’s report referred to Mr X’s objections and addressed the concerns he raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have a detrimental impact on Mr X’s home. I understand Mr X may disagree, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment in this regard.
8. Mr X says he had less time to comment on the application and had to rush his response. But as the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had Mr X had more time to submit his objections.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman