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 suffered significant injustice.
The complaint
Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning application. She says the Council failed to consult her about the application and she did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal before planning permission was granted. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on her property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms 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 letters were not delivered to neighbouring residents due to an error. However, I do not consider Ms X has suffered any significant injustice because of the Council’s error.
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 the development would have on Ms X’s home. However, the officer decided the amenity of neighbouring properties would not be adversely affected and the proposal would comply with the Council’s planning policies.
I understand Ms 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 development was acceptable. As the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Ms X known about the application and objected.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because she has not suffered any significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman