Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of planning and enforcement matters relating to a residential development in his local area. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of a planning application and particularly flood control issues. He says he and other residents will suffer because of the way the Council deals with planning matters and that it should employ better permanent staff and assess and educate councillors to higher standards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and Council, including its responses to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In 2018 the Council granted outline planning permission for a housing development in Mr X’s area. This left the detail to be addressed by reserved matters applications and discharge of conditions applications.
8. Mr X contacted the Council about a planning breach in connection with work starting at the site without the required flood alleviation scheme. The Council contacted the developer who stopped work which negated the need for enforcement action.
9. Mr X complained that the flood scheme proposed by developers had not been properly considered at Committee and says it has now been abandoned. The Environment Agency is currently working with the developer seeking an alternative approach to the scheme initially envisaged and approved at outline application stage.
10. The Council responded to the concerns Mr X raised at the two stages of its complaints procedure and it has confirmed that if necessary it will take enforcement action if the developer fails to comply with the conditions. I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council which has caused Mr X injustice.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says there exist a number of discrepancies which have not been addressed and which show fundamental failings of the planning committee. However, Mr X raised these issues with the Council which adequately addressed them under its complaints procedure and I do not consider there are grounds which justify our further involvement in the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr X sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman