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 significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and it has not properly considered the impact the development will have on his home.

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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
6. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer considered the impact on neighbouring properties, including Mr X’s home. However, the officer decided there would not be an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
8. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable.
9. Mr X says he was not notified about the application. 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.
10. The Council says it wrote to Mr X to notify him about the application, and he objected to the proposal. Mr X disputes this. But 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. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same even if there was fault with how the Council notified Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr 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