The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consult regarding his neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence to show the Council’s fault caused Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to consult neighbours about a planning application. He says the Council should not have approved the application as it will affect light to his property and cause overlooking. He is also concerned about the development is out of keeping with the character of the street.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has accepted that due to an error it failed to consult neighbours about the planning application. This is fault. But we have to consider whether the fault caused Mr X significant injustice and having reviewed the information available I see no basis for us to say it did.
Although the Council failed to consult Mr X on the proposal he was aware of it and objected. His objection was then taken into account by the officer dealing with the application, who set out their reasons for recommending it for approval in their report. The officer’s view that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on neighbour amenity or the character of the area is a matter of professional judgement and we cannot criticise it. The report clearly also shows the officer was aware of the relationship between Mr X’s property and the application site and there was no requirement for them to carry out a site visit as Mr X suggests.
Therefore, while it is clear the Council failed to comply with the consultation requirements in this case we cannot say this wrongly affected the outcome.
While Mr X has sought support from his neighbours in this matter the planning process is not a referendum; I am not therefore persuaded that there is enough evidence to show, on balance, that additional objections would have altered the Council’s decision. They would also not have required the Council to refer the matter to its planning committee.
Mr X also suggests neighbours could have pressured the local parish council to object but he is the neighbour most affected by the proposal and his concerns have been taken into account as set out above. The parish council was aware of the application and reached their own view and we could not say that contact from other neighbours would have altered their view or changed the outcome. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for the Council to revoke its decision or pay for a legal challenge to it.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence to show the Council’s fault wrongly affected the outcome of the application or, therefore, that it caused Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman