The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with two planning applications. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with two planning applications for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council failed to properly publicise the applications and did not consider the impact on his privacy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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. The Council’s statement for community involvement says the Council will also write to the residents of any properties adjoining the development site. In some cases, the Council will send notification letters to other properties in the vicinity of the application site if it is considered the properties will be affected by the proposed development.
Mr X’s home does not adjoin the application site. However, he says his home will be impacted by the development and he should have been told about the applications.
However, even if I were to say the Council was at fault for not notifying Mr X, I could not say he has been caused any significant injustice as a result. The case officer’s reports considered the acceptability of the developments, including the impact on the two properties immediately adjoining the development site. Mr X’s home was not mentioned in the reports. However, given the greater separation distance between Mr X’s home and the application site it is implicit that the impact on his property would also be acceptable. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint further explained why it does not consider there will be a material loss of privacy.
I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the applications were acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the developments, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the applications and objected.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman