Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close a planning enforcement investigation. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council closed his neighbour’s planning enforcement case without ensuring the drainage proposed under a new planning application is fit for purpose.

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.

(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 Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Where planning permission is granted, the developer decides to make changes. The planning authority may grant such an application and amend the original approval without the need to begin the planning process again, providing:
• it considers the procedural fairness of doing so (see legal advice). It should consider whether it might deprive any 3rd party of the opportunity of making representations they might want to make; and
• the nature of the application remains the same, so the amended proposal is still substantially the same as the original.
6. Councils may also decide that some very minor changes are ‘de minimis’ and can be accepted without requiring a non-material amendment.
7. The Council confirms it opened an investigation into a breach of planning control because Mr X’s neighbour had carried out unauthorised development.
8. The neighbour put in an application to amend the existing planning permission for changes to the drainage on site.
9. Mr X objected to the proposals.
10. The Planning Officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes reference to Mr X’s desire for more drainage on the site. However, having visited the site, the planning officer decided that the "amount of ACO drainage is sufficient, compliant with planning policy and does not materially impact the original planning permission.”
11. The Council granted permission to amend the drainage. The enforcement case was closed as the breach of planning control for the drainage is now regularised.
12. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for fault in the decision-making process, and when we find it, we decide whether it caused an injustice to the complainant.
13. I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the drainage on the site. He says he is now suffering from water ingress on his property. However, the Council:
• visited the site
• considered relevant policy; and
• considered Mr X’s objections

before deciding to approve the application to amend the drainage arrangements. Having followed the correct procedure, this is a decision the Council is entitled to take.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman