Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to revoke planning permission for a site opposite the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says the Council has allowed a situation where development can take place even though the developer cannot comply with a condition on the planning decision.
2. He says this means massive departures from both the outline and reserved matters planning permissions.
3. Mr B also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his concerns.
4. He wants the Council to:
• admit its errors
• revoke both planning permissions
• compensate him for the distress caused

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr B
• copies of his complaints to the Council and its responses
• Information on the planning applications published on the Council’s website; and
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman has previously considered the Council’s processing of the outline and reserved matters planning applications. We will not reconsider complaints where we have previously made decisions.
8. The planning permissions are for two properties on a site opposite Mr B’s home. A condition on the outline permission states:

“No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into its intended use until the improved access, parking facilities, visibility splays, turning area, parking spaces and garages / hardstanding, access drive and access drainage have been provided and maintained in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and retained for that purpose at all times”

9. Part of the front of the property next to the site is needed to achieve the approved access.
10. Mr B says the property next to the site has now been sold. He says the new owners have told him they will not allow the developer to use any part of their property for the access to the development site. He says the Council should revoke the planning permission because two properties can be built on the site but cannot be occupied as the developer cannot achieve the approved access.
11. The Council’s view is that it is not expedient to revoke the planning permission just because the developer cannot secure rights over adjoining land to allow development. This is a decision it is entitled to take.
12. Mr B also complains the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his concerns.
13. We will not usually consider complaints about the complaints process if we are not investigating the substantive issue. We do not consider there can be enough injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone, to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to withdraw planning permission.
15. I do not consider any failings the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint caused him enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman