Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council has approved outline planning permission to build new homes on land where the pipes for his septic tank and cold water are located. Mr B is concerned that new development will make it impossible to access and carry out repairs to his septic tank and pipework and that development could also cause damage to this infrastructure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the planning documents available on the Council’s website. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B has explained that he and some of his neighbours have a legal right to go on to a field owned by a third party in order to renew the septic and cold water tanks and pipes that serve their properties.
6. The field has been the site of planning applications to build residential dwellings. Mr B is concerned that building properties on the land will restrict or prevent his access to the tanks and pipes and it will not be possible to carry out maintenance or prevent damage.
7. Mr B believes these are planning matters that should be considered and controlled during the planning process. The Council has told Mr B that any requirements to comply with an existing way leave or legal judgement are civil matters and planning consent cannot override this.
8. While Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decisions to approve the planning application and that his concerns are civil matters, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.
9. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to say whether the Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission was correct. The Ombudsman can only criticise the Council if its decision was affected by fault.
10. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council approved the most recent outline planning application. This is because officers considered the planning history of the site and that the principle of planning permission had been established by two previously approved but now lapsed, planning applications. There had been no significant change in planning policy to now refuse the application.
11. Officers considered the representations Mr B and other residents made objecting to the proposed development. A report to the planning committee explained why officers did not consider the proposed development would have a significant impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties. The planning committee considered the application, the officer report and representations made before making its decision to approve the application.
12. A condition was added to the planning permission, requiring any application for reserved matters (where the details of the planning development would be considered) to take account of existing underground infrastructure on the site. The condition also required the layout to take account of this underground infrastructure to allow entitled parties future access for its maintenance and repair.
13. While Mr B considers the Council should have done more to safeguard his rights of access and to prevent possible future damage, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. These are not matters that can be controlled through planning permission. If the owner of the land restricts Mr B’s access in contravention of any existing legal rights and court orders, or causes damage to the infrastructure under the ground, these are civil matters and Mr B would need to pursue a civil remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman