Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters related to a planning application on a site adjoining the complainant’s property. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to a planning application for a development on adjoining land.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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. If there is evidence of fault in the process, we consider whether this is likely to have affected 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 and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is concerned that land clearance works on the application site may have affected the structural integrity of his own property.
7. But, with reference to paragraphs 2 and 3 above, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has handled this case to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The vegetation on the site was not subject to any special protection measures, so the Council had no power to stop the land clearance work undertaken by the applicant.
• The Council’s Building Control department has visited the site on two occasions, and is satisfied the works to the bank between the application site and Mr X’s property pose no safety issues.
• The Building Control team was also consulted on the structural survey submitted with the planning application, and it was satisfied a retaining wall could be constructed to enable the site to be developed.
• The Council says it sent notification letters to adjoining residents and erected a notice on the road where the site is located. This is in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s own Statement of Community Involvement.
• Due to the volume of correspondence Councils receive in response to planning applications, it is not usual for these to be acknowledged or responded to individually. Instead, any material planning considerations raised would be addressed in the officer’s assessment report.
• The officer’s report summarises the representations received about this planning application, and it goes on to address these issues and explain why the development is considered to be acceptable.
• If Mr X believes the works undertaken by the applicant/owner have damaged or endangered his property, then that would be a private, civil matter.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman