Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a breach of planning control. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he was denied the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the Council also failed to apply planning conditions to protect his privacy and the development has not been built in line with the approved plans.

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 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 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. In this case, the Council accepts it did not notify Mr X about the development as it should have due to an error. It says the planning decision would likely have been the same had Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X disagrees. He says the Council failed to properly consider the impact a window facing towards his property would have on his privacy. I agree the case officer’s report does seem to suggest the windows facing the neighboring properties will be obscurely glazed to protect privacy. But the planning condition only related to the window on one side of the development. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as a non-material amendment application has since been approved to ensure the window facing Mr X’s home is also obscurely glazed and non-opening.
7. Mr X says the development has not been completed in line with the approved plans. Mr X’s neighbour has made a retrospective application to regularise the breach. This application has not yet been determined. The Council has confirmed its enforcement case remains open and it will consider if formal action is necessary if the application is refused. As the enforcement investigation has not yet concluded, it is not possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any fault with how the Council dealt with the breach. Mr X can return to the Ombudsman and make a separate complaint if he remains unhappy once the planning application has been determined and the enforcement investigation has ended.

Back to top

Final decision

8. 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