Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s creation of a temporary compound on land near his home as the matter has not caused significant injustice. We cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about the costs of a flood defence project as the matter falls outside our jurisdiction and any complaint about the decision to grant planning permission for the compound concerns the actions of the local planning authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a temporary compound created by the Council to support the delivery of a flood defence project in the area. Mr X complains the project is a waste of public money and that the compound impacts on his property.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. To help with the delivery of a flood defence project the Council created a compound on land near Mr X’s home to store materials and provide facilities for staff. It did this in the belief the development was ‘permitted’ and did not require planning permission from the Borough Council as local planning authority.
6. Following reports of concerns by residents and the involvement of the Borough Council, the Council applied for planning permission to retain the compound on a temporary basis. The Borough Council considered the Council’s application and has now granted permission for it.
7. Mr X is unhappy the development has been allowed to remain on the land and believes it should be moved. He says it causes disruption and inconvenience and blocks his view. He is also concerned about the increase in the cost of the scheme, which he suggests provides poor value for money.
8. We cannot investigate Mr X’s concerns about the cost of the flood defence project because it is an issue which affects all or most of the people in the Council’s area; it is therefore excluded from investigation as set out at Paragraph 3.
9. We also cannot investigate, as part of this complaint, any concerns about the Borough Council’s handling of the Council’s planning application or its decision to grant permission. If Mr X believes the Borough Council failed to properly consider the application he should raise the matter with the Borough Council. Once he has completed the Borough Council’s complaints process, and if he remains unhappy, he may refer the matter back to us to consider as a new complaint.

10. There does appear to be fault in the Council’s creation of the compound without planning permission but this is not the only point we must consider. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.

11. We will not investigate the Council’s actions further because they did not cause Mr X significant injustice. The Borough Council has assessed the impact of the compound as part of the recent planning application and decided it is not so harmful as to warrant refusal; it is therefore unlikely that had the Council applied for planning permission at the outset, as it should have, the outcome would have been any different.
12. Mr X and his neighbours have lived with uncertainty and frustration about the issue over several months as a result of the Council creating the compound without first applying for permission but this in itself is not a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because any injustice resulting from fault by the Council is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman