Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application. He says the Council failed to notify him about the application and he did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mr X says the development is similar to a previously refused proposal and 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 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. The Council accepts it did not notify Mr X about his neighbour’s second planning application. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice as a result.
6. The Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development before granting planning permission. The case officer’s report referred to the impact on the area and Mr X’s property. However, the officer decided the development would not cause undue harm to neighbouring properties.
7. Mr X says the Council refused his neighbour’s original application for the site. While the approved development may be similar to the proposal previously refused, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the amended plans before granting planning permission.
8. I understand Mr X may disagree with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. 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 new application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman