Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not properly giving notice of a planning application. Investigation would be unlikely to find enough injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to give proper notice of planning application. He said the notice was fixed to a pole 20 metres from the site where few people would see it. He said he was unable to object to the application.

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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and checked the documents associated with the planning application on the Council’s website. I also checked the relationship of the application site to Mr X’s property.

Back to top

My assessment

5. It is arguable that the Council’s decision to affix the planning notice to a pole a short distance from the property, rather than to a metal gate or fence on the property, is a matter of professional judgement rather than fault. Even so, and assuming Mr X was unaware of the application and unable to object, it is unlikely he suffered sufficient personal injustice to warrant our involvement. His own property does not border the application site. There is at least one other property between his property and the application site. The planned development was on the opposite side of the building on the application site from Mr X’s property. It had no implications for parking near his property as it created no new dwelling or extra accommodation. Had he objected to the development, it is unlikely he would have been able to advance a valid planning reason why the proposed development would have impacted his property that would reasonably have led to a different decision by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of personal injustice to Mr X to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman