Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving planning permission for a site near Mr X’s property, as there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him about a planning application for the installation of a new field access and gate near his property. Mr X says the proposed route is in a conservation area and borders his property which is a listed building. Mr X says the lack of meaningful consultation means the installation will have a damaging effect on the local environment and it has caused him stress and anxiety. Mr X would like the Council to engage in communication with residents and for an alternative access route to be used.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.

4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received the planning application in April 2022 and issued its decision in September 2022.
6. The planning officer’s report states the Council advertised the application on site, in the press and by individual neighbour notification to the owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties.
7. Mr X did not receive this notification, however he became aware of the application in August and submitted his comments shortly after.
8. Mr X’s comments are detailed in the planning officer’s report and were considered prior to the application being approved.
9. The Council can refer planning applications for advice from Historic England when it believes it is necessary. In this case the Council did not complete a referral to Historic England as it did not deem it necessary.
10. Although Mr X was not directly notified of the planning application, Mr X’s comments were taken into account in the planning officer’s report, it is therefore unlikely the Council’s decision would have been different had Mr X received the direct notification. Therefore, any injustice experienced by Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice he experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman