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 by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and she therefore lost the opportunity to object to the proposal. Mrs X says the development will have a significant impact on her property.
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 continue 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), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs 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 notice near the development site. Mrs X says this was not put up in an appropriate location and the Council should have also written to the affected residents. However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider Mrs X has been caused 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. However, the case officer decided the proposal would not cause harmful overlooking or loss of privacy to any of the neighbouring properties.
I understand the case officer’s report does not specifically refer to Mrs X’s property. However, the report does fully assess the impact on the amenity of the properties which are closer to the development site than Mrs X’s home. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint also explains why there would not be an unacceptable impact on Mrs X’s amenity that would warrant the refusal of the application.
I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s 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 Mrs X known about the application and objected.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman