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 dealt with his neighbour’s planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about the application and the case officer did not visit the site before planning permission was granted. 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: 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 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, a notice was erected near the development site. The Council has accepted the notice was displayed in an area where Mr X was unlikely to see it. But it says it did still act in line with the statutory consultation requirements.
However, even if 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 neighbouring properties and decided the development would not result in a loss of light, privacy or amenity to the surrounding properties.
Mr X says the case officer failed to visit the site to properly assess the impact on his home. However, council officers are not obliged to carry out site visits before deciding on a planning application. Officers will often already have local knowledge of an area and be able to identify the impact of a proposed development using photographs and other tools.
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 application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.
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