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 suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a residential development near her home. Miss X says the Council failed to properly consult residents and she therefore lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Miss X says the new development will impact her home and garden. She has also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint.
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 Miss 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 did not initially consult Miss X about the proposal as her home would not be affected by the development. However, the Council says it reconsulted residents when the plans changed. It says it wrote to Miss X, erected amended site notices, and placed a notice in a local paper.
Miss X disputes this and says she did not receive a letter from the Council. I cannot know why Miss X did not receive the Council’s letter. However, even if I could say the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Miss X has been caused any significant injustice as a result.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the proposed dwelling closest to Miss X’s home would not have a significant impact on neighbouring amenity. The impact of the development was also discussed at the planning committee meeting before members voted to grant planning permission.
I understand Miss X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Miss X had the opportunity to object to the proposal.
Miss X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman