The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complainants have not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
The complaint
Mrs X has complained on behalf of herself and other residents about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near their home. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly publicise the application and they lost the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Mrs X says the development will impact their properties and the application should have been determined by the Council’s planning committee.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
In this case, the Council says it erected site notices near the development site. Mrs X says the Council should have also written to residents. She says the notices were placed in inappropriate locations and erected during the Christmas period meaning residents could not reasonably be expected to see them and be aware of the application.
However, even if I could say the Council was at fault in this regard, I do not consider that Mrs X, and the other residents she has complained on behalf of, have suffered significant injustice as a result. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided there would not be a harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. The Council also further explained in its response to Mrs X’s complaint why it did not consider there would be an unacceptable loss of light to resident’s homes.
I understand Mrs X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the application, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X and her neighbours known about the application and objected to the proposal.
Mrs X has also complained the application should have been referred to the Council’s planning committee for determination. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has acted in line with its constitution.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because the complainants have not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman