Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and subsequent development. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not properly consider all matters relating to a planning application before giving planning consent. He also complains about how the Council handled his complaint.

Back to top

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by the complainant and information published on the Council’s website.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X’s complaint relates to a development close to his home. He says neighbours were not consulted, the Council did not consider the removal of protected trees adequately and he has concerns about the construction not complying with the approved plans for the development. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
5. The Council previously refused planning consent for the development of a new house in 2023. The applicant submitted a further application in March 2024. A site visit was conducted in April 2024 and a detailed report demonstrates consideration was given to relevant policies and legislation. The Council also considered the reasons for the rejection of the previous application at this site and the applicant’s proposed mitigations. The evidence shows the Council has properly considered the planning application and therefore we would be unlikely to fault its decision.
6. Mr X says he was not aware of the planning application or that consultation was ongoing. The Council consulted with neighbouring properties as well as the Town Council and ward Councillors. The Council received one objection which was given due consideration. Although Mr X lives in the vicinity, his property is not adjacent to the development so he was not directly notified of the consultation. There is no indication the consultation was flawed.
7. Mr X says the Council did not give full consideration when giving permission for the removal of two protected trees. The evidence shows the Council used a survey report and carried out an assessment to determine the trees were diseased and should be removed. The Council also agreed mitigation for the loss of these protected trees. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and reasonable consideration has been given. There is no evidence the Council was at fault in approving the removal of these protected trees.
8. Mr X is concerned the development will not be built in accordance with approved plans. The Council has advised that any specific concerns can be raised with the Council using the appropriate channels.
9. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate how a Council has handled a complaint if the substantive matter does not fall to be investigated. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence the Council is at fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman