Summary: Mr X complains the Council restricted its consultation on proposal for redevelopment of a housing estate to residents of the estate only. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives near a council estate which is due for regeneration. He complains non- residents could not vote in the ballot on the 3 development proposals put to residents.
6. The ballot took place in November 2019. Residents could vote for one of the following options:
• Option 1. No change
• Option 2. No demolition of existing homes, refurbishment of all existing Council homes, optional refurbishment of existing freehold homes, 192 new homes, existing shops, and a community centre kept
• Option 3. Demolition of 92 existing homes, 369 new homes with parking, refurbishment of all existing Council homes. Optional refurbishment of existing freehold homes, local park extended and improved. New community centre.
7. The Council confirmed 65% of the residents took park in the ballot. Of those 55% voted for option 3.

Assessment

8. Mr X says those who live close to the estate should be able to take part in the vote because the proposed development will have a significant impact on neighbours. He says it will dilute health and education services because of the increased number of homes. Plus, there will be noise and pollution caused by construction traffic for years.
9. The Council says it has consulted those living in on the estate who will be directly impacted by the proposals, including possible demolition of their homes. The Council’s duty to consult under s105 of the Housing Act 1985 is owed to its secure tenants. Mr X is not covered by this definition.
10. The Council has not put in any planning applications to carry out the preferred proposal. Should it do so, the public, including Mr X, can comment on the proposals. Objections should be based on material planning considerations. Impact of the development on a resident’s amenity is a material planning consideration which must be considered by the Council when it decides whether to permit the proposed redevelopment.
11. Mr X is concerned about the possible impact redeveloping the estate will have on him and his neighbourhood. However, no redevelopment has taken place yet, so I do not consider he has suffered any significant personal injustice. He will be able to comment on any planning application when it is submitted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions on this matter. Also, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice. Nor can we achieve the outcome he is seeking as the ballot on the regeneration proposals for the estate has already taken place.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman