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 complainant has not been caused significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. Mrs X says the Council did not publicise the application as it should have, and she lost the opportunity to raise her objections. Mrs X says the development has a significant impact on her property. She says it blocks views and sunlight and impacts her privacy.
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 Council.
I considered 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. The Council’s statement for community involvement says for non-major developments it will also erect a site notice or send neighbour notification letters.
In this case, the Council has accepted the neighbour notification letters were not sent as they should have been and has apologised. However, I cannot say Mrs X has been caused significant injustice because of the Council’s failure to properly publicise the application.
I am satisfied the Council assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on Mrs X’s property, before granting planning permission. The case officer decided the development would not result in any privacy or overlooking issues. The officer also said the extension would not create a sense of enclosure and would comply with the 45-degree light test. The impact on Mrs X’s property was also addressed further in the Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint.
I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the decision to grant planning permission would be the same had Mrs X known about the application and objected.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not been caused significant injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman