Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s handling of matters concerning the construction of a site access for a planning development close to her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mrs B, says the Council failed to notify her about the construction of a site access for a development close to her home. It has allowed her amenity to be significantly impacted as the construction works cause noise, vibration and dust pollution.

Back to top

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mrs B and the Council. I gave Mrs B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs B lives close to an area of land on which, some years ago, the Council granted outline planning permission for a large housing development. Since this time the developers have submitted further applications relating to the site, including those to discharge planning conditions.
5. In 2019 Mrs B contacted the Council with a complaint about a new access route being built into the site close to her property which she had no previous notice of and about the resulting dust, noise and vibration it was causing.
6. The Council responded by explaining that one of the planning conditions for the development meant that the Council had to approve construction routes around the site and that while indicative plans at an earlier stage had shown an alternative route, developers could apply to vary such details based on a variety of factors, including site constraints and safety. It explained that when developers seek to discharge conditions, they are not subject to public consultation and instead are based on a technical review. However, it confirmed officers had been visiting the site to ensure compliance with the construction management plan and that Mrs B could report any ongoing concerns she had.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response and upset that she and other affected residents had not been notified in advance of the new access route, she took her complaint to the next level and asked the Council to eradicate the site access.
8. The Council addressed the specific issues she raised and acknowledged the impact such large-scale developments can have. It explained developers are required to put measures in place to reduce this impact and that officers monitor and work to reduce the impact where possible. While it acknowledged it would have been courteous to have notified her that the site entrance was to be built close to her property, it confirmed it was not a matter on which it would consult the public and that it had properly followed procedures. It said there were processes in place to ensure the developers complied with the planning conditions but that if she had any concerns or evidence she would like to report then she could do so to a named officer.

Assessment

9. It is clear Mrs B’s amenity has been affected by the development so close to her home and that she and her husband have had to endure dust, noise and vibration. However, unfortunately this will likely always be the case for residents near to a major development site.
10. The Council has acknowledged it would have been considerate if it had given her prior notice of the new access route but it did not have to undertake public consultation on it. The Council is monitoring the work undertaken by the developers but it is open to Mrs B to report any concerns she has or to provide evidence of non-compliance by the developers.
11. I understand Mrs B will be disappointed, but I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman