Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development. This is because the complainant has 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 and an application for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD). Mr X says the Council failed to consult him about the applications and the developments will impact his property.

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 Mr 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. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the CLOPUD application and says the Council should have consulted him as the proposal will impact his property. However, there was no requirement for the Council to notify neighbouring residents about the application. I am also satisfied the application was properly considered in line with the relevant legislation before the Council decided the proposal was permitted development and therefore Mr X’s neighbour did not need to apply for planning permission to change the use of the property.
7. Mr X says he was also not told about an application to extend the property. However, even if I did consider the Council failed to notify Mr X about this application as it should have, I do not consider he has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
8. 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 neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. However, the officer decided there would not be a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.
9. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. 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 Mr X known about the application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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