Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the grant of planning permission because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to properly notify neighbours of a planning application for an extension.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that the Council failed to place site notices for a planning application form a neighbour (for an extension) in a reasonable place and so no objections were made to the planning application.
6. Regulations set out the minimum requirements for how councils publicise planning applications.
7. For minor developments, councils must publicise by either:
8. a site notice; or
9. serving notice on adjoining owners or occupiers.
10. The Council has provided a map to show where the site notices were placed (and photographs to show that they were placed in those positions).
11. I am satisfied that the notices were placed in positions which accord with the Council’s legal obligations. Further, I am satisfied that the Planning Officer took account of neighbouring amenity when the planning report was written.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
13. Mr X’s dissatisfaction lies with the merit of the Council’s decision but in the absence of fault by the Council, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision.
14. I also note that Mr X’s property is some distance from the proposed extension and there is tree screening in between which would reduce considerably any effect upon his amenity. That loss of amenity would not in my view, be so significant as to warrant investigate in the event that fault was found.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman