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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to notify neighbouring residents and did not consider the concerns he raised about the development before granting planning permission. Mr X says he did not have the opportunity to properly comment on the proposal and the development will have a significant impact on his property and the area.

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))

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 did write to neighbouring residents, including Mr X. Mr X says he did not receive a letter from the Council and only found out about the application by chance. Once he became aware he sent a holding objection to the Council and told it he intended to make further comments. The planning application was approved before Mr X objected further.
6. 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. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring properties and the area. The case officer decided there would not be a harmful impact and the development would comply with its planning policies.
7. Mr X says the initial comments he made about the development were not considered by the Council and there was no reference to his objection in the case officer’s report. However, as the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the planning decision would have been the same had the case officer’s report referenced Mr X’s comments and if he had the opportunity to send more detailed objections to the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman