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

1. 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. He says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. In this case, the Council says it sent letters to neighbouring residents. Mr X says he did not receive the letter and the Council has said there is no evidence to show this was sent.
6. However, even if the Council failed to properly publicise the application as Mr X believes, I do not consider he has suffered significant injustice as a result.
7. 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 Mr X’s property. However, the officer decided the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.
8. Mr X says the applicant intends to remove a hedge on his land to allow for the development. But it is not for the Council to get involved in land ownership issues or boundary disputes. Instead, this will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. 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.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman