Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s officers’ consultee response on a planning application for a development near her home. There is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of involving this Council to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in an area prone to flooding. The local planning authority (LPA) received an application for a development nearby. The Council’s Flood and Water Resources Team (SFWRT) was a consultee on that planning application in relation to the development’s proposed management of surface water. It provided its views to the LPA deciding the application.
2. Mrs X complains the Council failed to assess the dangers of surface water run-off caused by the development when acting in its planning consultee role.
3. Mrs X is worried about her property flooding if the development is granted permission then built. She is concerned about the Council working correctly when acting as a planning consultee on surface water issues.
4. Mrs X wants the Council to review its consultee response regarding the application, explain its position and explain why it does not require further information in response to her and others’ objections and arguments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We understand Mrs X’s complaint focuses on the actions of the Council’s SFWRT officers, not the LPA as the planning application’s decision-maker here. But for us to investigate, there must be a causal link between the action or inaction of a council complained of and a significant personal injustice.
8. There is no such link between this Council’s planning consultee response and Mrs X’s main claimed injustice of possible future flooding of her property. That claimed injustice does not stem from this Council’s consultee response; it stems potentially from the LPA’s planning decision on the application, which it is yet to make, and then on the development being built.
9. Even if there were fault by the Council when acting as a planning consultee here, we would not investigate. We recognise Mrs X may be annoyed and frustrated that the Council’s consultee response is not as detailed as she and others would want and is concerned about how it fulfils its planning consultee role. These are injustices to Mrs X which could stem from the Council’s actions about which she has complained. But her frustrations, annoyances or concerns do not amount to such a significant personal injustice here to her to justify us investigating.
10. The outcome Mrs X wants from her complaint is for the Council to revisit its views on the planning application and reply to her and others’ objections and arguments about its current position. We cannot order councils to rewrite and reissue their planning consultee responses. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.
11. The Council gave its views on the development as part of the LPA’s planning process. We realise Mrs X does not agree with the Council’s assessment and position. But the way for Mrs X or anyone else to challenge the Council’s views is through the planning process being followed by the LPA. That is the formal and public route available for the use of objectors and supporters of planning applications. We understand Mrs X has submitted to the LPA her comments and information on surface water matters relating to the application. It is now for the LPA’s planning process to take account of all comments and evidence on those matters, including Mrs X’s information and the Council’s consultee response, when reaching its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient injustice to her stemming from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman