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 notify him about the application and the development will have a significant impact on his property.

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 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. The Council says it wrote to neighbouring residents and erected a site notice. Mr X says he did not receive the Council’s letter and has questioned when the site notice was put up. However, even if the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring residents. However, the officer decided the development would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected to the proposal.
8. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman