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 Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the planning application form contained incorrect information. He also says the Council failed to tell him about the proposal and he therefore lost the opportunity to object. Mr X says he has been caused considerable stress by the matter.
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 erected a site notice and wrote to some of the neighbouring residents. But it did not send a letter to Mr X. However, even if I could say the Council failed to properly 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 considered the acceptability of the development, including the impact on the area and neighbouring properties, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not have an overbearing impact on the dwellings located on the street where Mr X lives or impact privacy.
Mr X says the applicant incorrectly said there were no trees at the development site. However, the case officer was aware of the trees and the Council has explained why the presence of the trees did not affect the planning decision. The trees were also not protected, and the applicant was entitled to remove these regardless of the planning application.
I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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 had the opportunity to object to the proposal or had there not been an error in the application form regarding the trees at the development site.
Mr 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 Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman