Summary: Mrs X and Dr Y complained the Council failed to properly consider planning applications at a neighbouring property. We will not investigate this complaint. The planning permission can no longer be executed, and we have decided to discontinue our investigation as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X and Dr Y complain about how the Council considered planning applications at a neighbouring property. Specifically, Mrs X and Dr Y say the Council:
• took too long to decide on the applications;
• failed to properly consider their objections to the plans;
• failed to properly consider the impact of drainage on neighbouring properties; and
• failed to understand the risks presented by a new entry way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint or any part of a complaint that is within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mrs X about this complaint and considered all the information her and Dr Y provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
5. Mrs X and Dr Y, and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. The owners of a property that neighbours Mrs X’s and Dr Y’s homes submitted planning applications to the Council to extend and develop their property.
7. Mrs X and Dr Y objected to the plans and provided supporting evidence.
8. The Council made the decision to grant planning permission.
9. Mrs X and Dr Y complained about the Council’s decision as they felt it had taken too long to make, had failed to properly consider their objections and the impact of drainage on neighbouring properties and failed to understand the risks of a new entry way for construction purposes.
10. The Council acknowledged it had taken too long to make a decision on the planning applications and said it had now put a system in place to actively monitor timescales of planning applications. The Council said it had properly considered the applications and objections received before approving the plans.
11. Before work could start, the property in question was destroyed by a fire. As a consequence, it needs to be completely rebuilt, subject to a new planning application, meaning the approved planning permission Mrs X and Dr Y have complained about will never be executed.

Analysis

12. The Council has accepted it took too long to make a decision on the planning applications in question. This is fault. However, it has already taken steps to avoid this happening again in the future by putting a process in place to monitor timescales of planning applications going forward. I find this is suitable action to prevent recurrence.
13. Because the property that was the subject of the planning permission no longer exists, it is not possible for the planning permission to be executed. This being the case, my view is it is not likely an investigation or a finding of fault will result in a different outcome for Mrs X and Dr Y. I say this because even if I were to find fault with how the Council considered the application, there is not going to be any injustice to remedy.
14. If Mrs X and Dr Y feel the Council fails to properly consider any new planning applications, they would be free to raise a new complaint with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I find we should not investigate this complaint. This is because the planning permission cannot be executed, and further investigation is unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman