Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with planning matters at a site close to the complainants home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I will call Mr X, complains about how the Council has dealt with planning matters at a site close to his home. Mr X says:
• The Council failed to consult him on the initial planning application
• The Council has failed to properly monitor the site and failed to deal with his reports of issues on the site such as blocked and dirty roads.
• He has been subject to threats from the developer and his car was damaged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council received a planning application for development close to Mr X’s home. It had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal.
6. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he was not consulted about the development. The case officer’s report addressed the acceptability of the proposal, including the impact on neighbouring properties, such as Mr X’s. The report said the proposed extension would not have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity due to the separation distance between the proposed an existing properties. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement to decide the proposal was acceptable. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault.
7. As the Council properly considered the impact of the development before granting planning permission, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X had the opportunity to raise his objections. Therefore, I do not consider that the decision not to write to Mr X has caused him a significant injustice.
8. Furthermore, the developer has since submitted a new application to modify the number of properties on the site and the site layout. Mr X has had an opportunity to comment on that and the Council will consider the application taking into account his objections and any impact the changes have on him before reaching a decision. If Mr X is dissatisfied with how the Council deals with that application, he can complaint to the Council and ask the Ombudsman to investigate once the Council has issued its final response.
9. Mr X has also complained to the Council about the actions of the developer carrying out works to the site. Mr X says the developer has blocked access to his property and damaged the road.
10. The Council carried out several site visits since work started. It does not consider that any of the developers actions constitute a breach of planning conditions. It has communicated with the developer about the issues raised and followed up with further visits to check that improvements to the site have been made. I see no fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints and I am satisfied the Council has addressed Mr X concerns appropriately. I will therefore not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint.
11. Mr X also raised other issues with the Council which are not planning matters and are better dealt with by the police, insurers or the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman