Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council did not properly notify her and other residents about a planning application. This is because any alleged fault has not caused Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly notify her and other residents about a planning application for a permission in principle. She says the notice was removed and therefore she and other residents lost the opportunity to object to the application, and comment about its inclusion of common and unowned land.

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), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. For applications for permission in principle, councils must display a site notice in at least one place on or near the application site for at least 14 days. If a notice is removed, obscured or defaced before the 14-day period has ended, through no fault or intention of the council, the council can still be treated as having given notice if it has taken reasonable steps to protect the notice and, where necessary, replace it.
6. The Council displayed the planning application notice on a pole immediately adjacent to the application site. It appears the Council was told the notice had been removed before the 14-day period had ended. However, I have seen no evidence the Council took steps to protect or replace the notice. It is therefore unclear whether the Council took sufficient steps to publicise the application.
7. Whilst I acknowledge there are potential shortcomings in the Council’s advertisement of the notice, I do not consider this has caused Ms X injustice that justifies us investigating. The planning reports show the Council did consider the application’s impact on common land, and noted this would be a matter to consider in detail at the technical details stage.
8. An applicant that has been granted permission in principle cannot proceed with development before the Council has granted them technical details consent. This requires a further application to be made to the Council, following which relevant notices will be publicised. Ms X and other residents therefore can object and comment on the proposed development once the applicant applies for technical details consent. I therefore do not consider that any shortcomings in the earlier notice significantly disadvantaged Ms X or other residents and any claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any alleged fault has not caused her an injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman