Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application in 2017. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consult him on changes to plans for a large development near his home. He says the changes mean his house will not now be demolished and will be very close to a new relief road. He says his property will lose value and the road will be within two metres of his home and garden.
2. Mr X wants the Council to move the location of the planned relief road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council confirms an outline planning application to develop the site, including a new relief road, was approved in 2009.
7. Mr X bought his house in 2013. The Council says it received a reserved matters application in 2017 which was approved in May 2018.
8. Mr X says he was not aware of the application. However, the Council confirms it sent consultation letters to his address in July and November 2017. These refer to the application as a whole and not just the relief road. Site notices were erected, and a notice placed in the local paper. It also confirms the development has been in planning stages for 14 years and subject to a planning appeal, a public inquiry, a high court case and much local publicity.
9. The Council says the relief road formed part of the original 2009 application with a southern access road directly adjacent to Mr X’s home. This would have appeared on the local search and his solicitor should have informed him of this when he purchased the house in 2013. The Council confirms the original outline permission did not require Mr X’s home. I would not have thought Mr X would have purchased the property if it was due for demolition.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor can we require the Council to move the relief road which the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman