The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to consult Mr X about a planning application for a development on land close to his property. This because it is unlikely an investigation would add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not consult him specifically about a planning application for a site close to his home as it had done for previous applications at the same site. He says he should have been given the right to object and to stop the development which will impact on his amenity.
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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Having previously been notified about planning applications received by the Council for development at a site next to his property, Mr X complained to the Council when he found out planning permission had been granted for a recent application and he had not been specifically notified, missing out on the opportunity to object to the latest application.
The Council acknowledged that it had not been consistent and that it would have been good practice to have notified him as it had done in the past and it apologised for this. However, it explained there had been no duty to consult with him specifically as his property did not abut the application site and it had satisfied the statutory notification requirements by erecting a site notice.
It also explained that while it had not received objections from him for this application, comments he had made previously had been noted but, as for the earlier applications, no adverse amenity impact on him had been identified given the small scale of the development and the considerable distance it was from his property.
The Council’s own investigation acknowledged it had not been consistent and that there had been delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.
Even if Mr X had objected to the application, an investigation could not conclude the outcome would have been different and the application would have been refused because while Mr X did object to earlier applications, his objections were not the reason for past refusals. As the officer report for the application noted, no concerns over adverse amenity impacts to Mr X had previously been identified.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman