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.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near her home. Ms X says the Council failed to notify her about the application and based the decision to grant permission on inaccurate information.

Back to top

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:

• 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, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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.
6. In this case the Council says it erected a site notice. Ms X says the notice was not put up in an appropriate location. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on neighbouring residents. However, the officer decided the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
8. Ms X says the separation distances referred to in the case officer’s report are incorrect as there is less than 20 metres between her home and the development site. The Council says it has checked the measurements and there is approximately 19 metres between the properties and about 21 metres between habitable windows. It accepts this could have been clearer in the report but says the separation distance is still adequate and in line with its design guide. I understand Ms X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard.
9. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, I consider it likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Ms X known about the application and objected. I also consider it likely the planning decision would have been the same had the measurements been clearer in the case officer’s report.
10. Ms 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 Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman