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. Ms X has complained about how the Council has dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says it failed to tell her about the application, and she did not have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Ms X says the Council did not properly assess the application and the development has a significant impact on her 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 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 placed a site notice near the development site. Ms X says the notice was not put in an appropriate location, and she was therefore not aware of the application.
6. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X suffered significant injustice as a result.
7. 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 properties. The officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact on Ms X’s home.
8. Ms X says the development does not comply with the 25 and 45 degree light tests. However, failing to comply with all aspects of planning policy and guidance does not necessarily mean an application should be refused. The case officer explained why the proposal would still have an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to Ms X’s home. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use its professional judgement.
9. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had Ms X known about the application and objected.
10. The Council has acknowledged there were issues with how it dealt with Ms X’s complaint and it has apologised. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this. The injustice suffered because of complaint handling issues would also not be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman as a stand-alone matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman