Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consult residents about the application and the decision to grant permission is not in line with planning policy and requirements. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on his amenity and the environment.

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 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), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. 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.
7. In this case, the Council says it wrote to neighbouring residents and erected a site notice. Mr X has complained the Council did not write to the residents most affected by the development and says the site notice was put up in an inappropriate location. However, even if the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as he still knew about the application and had the opportunity to comment on the proposal.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the officer decided the development would not have an unacceptable impact.
9. Mr X says the Council has not explained why the proposal is acceptable and says the Council did not visit the properties impacted by the development. However, the case officer’s report considered the proposal against the relevant policies and explained why the development was acceptable. There is also no requirement for Council’s to visit neighbouring properties when considering an application and the impact can usually be assessed from the development site. Mr X says the Council has failed to consider previous planning conditions that apply to the site and the use of a communal garden. But the Council has explained why it does not consider the amenity space of the garden will be affected.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X says the developer has not complied with a planning condition to remove an existing unauthorised structure from the site. Mr X’s concerns about the possible planning breach are currently being investigated by the Council’s enforcement team. As the enforcement investigation has not yet concluded it is not possible to say if Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of any alleged fault by the Council. The Council may still decide there has not been a breach or that enforcement action is not necessary. Mr X can return to the Ombudsman with a new complaint if he remains unhappy once the enforcement investigation has ended.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman