Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not sending him a notification letter for a commercial development next to his property, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is insufficient significant personal injustice from the notification letter issue to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we would find Council fault in the planning process which would have led to a different outcome. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a property bordering a new commercial development. He complains the Council:
1. failed to send him a notification letter about the planning application;
2. has failed to properly deal with and resolve his complaint.
2. Mr X says the lack of a notification letter meant he was denied the opportunity to make formal representations, raise impacts specific to his property, influence mitigation measures or conditions, or participate in the planning decision-making process. He says this exclusion from the planning process caused him distress and frustration. Mr X says the lack of the letter has caused loss of amenity, outlook and enjoyment of his home due to the development’s proximity to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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; 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

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council says it complied with national legal requirements to publicise the planning application by posting a site notice and issuing a local press notice. However, officers accept the Council’s own policy required them to notify all residents of properties adjacent to the development site by letter, and fault resulted in Mr X not receiving that letter.
6. Where there is fault we must then consider the injustice stemming directly from that fault. It appears Mr X may not have become aware of the development any other way, including a letter the Council says the developer sent to residents in 2023, so he did not comment on the application. We understand Mr X’s upset and frustration at missing an opportunity to be involved in the planning process, because he did not receive the Council’s notification letter. But Mr X’s loss of opportunity to be involved in the planning process and his distress and frustration from this do not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to him to warrant us investigating.
7. The Council’s planning officer report to the committee considers the impacts of the development on nearby residential areas, including Mr X’s. Officers received representations from residents opposing the development and responded to them in the report. They recognised the development would have impacts, including being visible from some properties. Officers considered the proposals involved sufficient boundary treatments, including raised land with trees planted on top and the colour of the buildings, to reduce the development’s impacts. They considered the orientation and siting of buildings had been planned to limit environmental impacts from noise or fumes, making the development acceptable in planning terms. The Council properly considered amenity concerns raised by residents regarding the development when making its recommendation to the committee to grant the permission. If the committee had disagreed with officers, it was open to them to refuse the permission. Even if we were to investigate here, it is unlikely we would find fault in the planning process which would have led to a different planning outcome.
8. We note Mr X says the Council’s fault in not sending him a notification letter has led to a development next to his property which affects his amenity. He says the Council’s view, that the development would have received the same permission even if they had sent him a notification letter, is speculation. But we also cannot say the development would not have received permission or would have been built differently if Mr X had received a planning notification letter and made his representations. That would also be speculation. The lack of that letter to Mr X did not directly result in the planning decision by the committee to grant the development’s permission. There is no direct link between that Council error and the presence of the new development, so its impact on Mr X’s property is not a claimed injustice giving us grounds to investigate.
9. Mr X also complains the Council has not resolved his complaint and did not consider the matter’s impacts on him. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant personal injustice to him stemming from the notification letter issue to justify an investigation; and
• it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s planning process which would have led to a different outcome; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman