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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says she was not consulted about the application, and the development will impact her 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 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 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. In this case, the Council says it wrote to affected residents, erected a site notice and published an advert in a local paper. Ms X says she should have been notified about the application. But even if the Council failed to publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. Ms X says the plans for the development did not include measurements and she believes her home will lose value because of the development. However, the Council has explained the plans were to scale and therefore it was aware of the height of the development when assessing the proposal. Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
7. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the development was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the proposal, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would have been the same had Ms X known about the development and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

8. 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