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 as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not tell him about changes to the proposal and he therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on the amended plans before planning permission was granted. Mr X says the development will have a significant impact on 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. The Council received a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. During the assessment of the application, the plans for the proposed development were amended to address concerns raised by the heritage officer. Mr X says the changes to the plans impact his property and he should have been notified so he could comment. However, the Council has explained why it did not consider further consultation necessary. I understand Mr X disagrees. But even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
6. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, including the changes to the proposed fencing, before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the area and neighbouring properties. However, the officer decided the development would be acceptable. The permission was also subject to a condition requiring the developer to submit details of the new railings to the Council for approval before installation.
7. 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 changes to the plans and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

8. 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