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. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Ms X says the Council failed to notify her about the application and she lost the opportunity to object. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on her 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:

• 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 Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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.
5. In this case, the Council says it wrote to residents, including Ms X, to notify them about the application. Ms X says she did not receive the Council’s letter and says it should send the notification letters by recorded delivery to ensure they are received. However, there is no requirement for councils to use a recorded delivery service when publicising applications. Furthermore, even if the Council did not publicise Ms X’s neighbour’s application as it should have, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice as a result.
6. 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. However, the officer decided the impact of the development would not warrant the refusal of the application and would not be unduly detrimental to neighbouring properties.
7. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement 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 Ms X known about the application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman