Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. This is because Mrs Y has not suffered significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the way the Council considered a planning application. She says the Council:

• Did not notify her about the planning application for a neighbouring property.
• Dismissed issues about tree loss, privacy, rubble and encroachment on her property.
• Did not acknowledge her complaint within policy timescales.

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 Mrs Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs Y says the Council did not notify her about the planning application for a neighbouring property.
6. The planning officer’s report for the application explains that neighbouring properties were notified of the application and no objections were received. Mrs Y disputes this. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mrs Y has suffered any significant injustice. I am satisfied the planning officer properly considered the impact of the application on neighbouring properties before deciding the development was acceptable.
7. The Council followed its duties when considering this planning application, and the evidence I have seen suggests that the outcome would have likely been the same had Mrs Y known about the application and objected to the proposal.
8. Mrs Y says the Council dismissed issues about trees being removed and the development encroaching on her property. She is also concerned about disruption and rubble while the development is being built.
9. The Council investigated Mrs Y’s concerns about protected trees being impacted by the development and confirmed the protected tree at the development site had not been removed. Concerns about disruption during construction, removal of Mrs Y’s trees and encroachment on her land are not material planning issues. The Council has explained this to Mrs Y. Instead, these would be private civil matters between Mrs Y and her neighbour.
10. Mrs Y says her complaint was not acknowledged within policy timescales. She says the Council later apologised for this.
11. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of her suffering significant injustice as a result of the way the Council considered the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman