Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond to his correspondence about a development happening near a house he owns. Mr X says the developer has carried out work which affects his garage and blocks access to his land.

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

(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 granted planning permission for development behind a house Mr X owns in 2019. The developer has started building work.
6. Mr X says that the building work is affecting his property and new plans submitted by the developer will block access to his land.
7. The Council has not reached a decision on the amended plans. Therefore we cannot say whether the Council has acted with fault and whether any fault has caused an injustice until a decision is reached.
8. To date the Council has given local people, including Mr X more time to comment on plans and has asked the developer to amend plans in light of those comments. This is a normal part of the planning process. We would expect the Council to consider any comments received in response to a planning application but we would not expect the Council to acknowledge or respond to each comment it receives. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with Mr X’s concerns to date and we will not investigate this complaint.
9. The Council is not responsible for enforcing Party Wall Act rules or ensuring any private access arrangements are maintained. This is a matter between Mr X and the developer. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and we will not investigate this complaint.
10. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision on the amended plans he may make a new complaint. We would expect the Council to have an opportunity to respond in the first instance.
11. Mr X is unhappy that the Council did arrange for someone independent to consider his stage 2 complaint. The Council has not breached its complaints policy in allowing a senior planning officer to respond to Mr X’s complaint. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with a planning application or how it responded to his complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman