Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for new houses close to his home. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a planning application for 51 houses close to his home without all the relevant information on flood risk and drainage.
2. He says:
• if the planning committee had received all the necessary information it might not have approved the application; and
• if he had not pursued his concerns and offensive high impact drainage proposal might have been ‘nodded through’.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X including the Council’s final response to his complaint. I also considered the planning application documents on the Council’s website.
5. Mr X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2018 the Council received a planning application for 51 new houses close to Mr X’s home. He and others objected to the application.
7. In May 2019, the Council’s planning committee considered the application. The minutes show councillors heard from objectors and those in support of the application. A councillor proposed refusing the application, but this motion was lost. A further vote was taken, and the committee approved the application with certain conditions.
8. In considering whether to investigate this complaint I have considered whether Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the Council's actions.
9. He says if the planning committee had received all the information about the proposals for drainage and surface water management on the site, it might have decided to refuse the planning application. However, we cannot know this for certain.
10. Mr X believes had he not pursued the Council with his concerns about the proposals for drainage at the site; the original proposals may have been ‘nodded though.’ However, they were not.
11. Mr X also has concerns about applications which introduce major developmental changes being used to discharge conditions. Applications to discharge conditions are not open for public comment. He says such applications should be the subject of new applications or, preferably, part of the initial application.
12. The Council must decide applications which it receives. If the applications are valid, meeting the requirements of relevant planning law, the Council cannot insist a developer submits an alternative application.
13. Mr X’s final complaint states the Council has failed to respond to legitimate complaints on site enablement works.
14. However, the Council has advised there is a continuing planning enforcement investigation on possible damage by the developer to the root protection areas of protected trees.
15. In view of the above it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council has responded to reports of breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Draft decision

16. I will not investigate this complaint. I do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants investigation. And it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council had responded to reports of breaches of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman