Summary: Mr X complains the Council accepted a low maintenance planting scheme for a development in his village rather than properly considering Biodiversity Net Gain. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council accepted a “low maintenance” planting scheme for a development in his village rather than properly considering Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). He says this has led to a loss of biodiversity in his village.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that it had not followed Government policy to increase BNG and protect the natural environment when it allowed a low maintenance planting scheme for a development in his village.
7. In response the Council explained it is usual for landscaping to be dealt with by way of a condition attached to the planning permission and that it is down to the judgement of officers whether a scheme is acceptable or not.
8. In this case the Council noted there was planting for the front garden but it accepted the points Mr X had made and confirmed officers would be reminded that biodiversity and soft landscaping schemes should be given due consideration in future discharge of conditions applications.
9. The Council also explained that the legislation which requires mandatory biodiversity net gain will become law in 2023 and that its Planning Department is preparing for the change and recruiting a Biodiversity Officer who will lead on this area of work.
10. While Mr X’s concerns are noted, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will usefully add to the Council’s own investigation or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman