The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.
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: 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))
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.
In this case, the Council says it erected a site notice. Mr X disputes this and says the Council should have written to the affected residents. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has been caused significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on residential amenity. The case officer decided the development would not cause overshadowing, loss of privacy or have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.
Mr X has also raised concerns about the future use of the building. The planning permission was subject to a condition restricting the use of the building. If Mr X believes the planning conditions are not being complied with, he can report this to the Council’s enforcement team to investigate the possible breach.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman