Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the response the Council provided to a consultation request for a planning application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the consultation response the Council provided to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for a planning application at a site near his home. Mr X says the Council could have stopped the development but instead withdrew its objection to the proposal without a good reason. Mr X says his property has lost value and the cost of his home insurance has increased due to the flood risk caused by the development.

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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The LPA received a planning application for a development in the area where Mr X lives. The LPA consulted the relevant third-party consultees, including the Council as the Local Lead Flood Authority, before granting planning permission. Shortly after permission was granted, the developer applied to vary the planning conditions and make changes to the approved plans. The Council was consulted about the changes and objected to the proposal. However, following correspondence with the LPA the Council withdrew its objection. While it maintained its concerns about the development it said the proposed changes to the plans had no increased impact on the management of surface water for the development or flood risk compared to the application already approved.
7. Mr X says the Council should have stopped the development. But the Council has explained why it withdrew its objection and when it responded to the application to vary the planning conditions it could only consider the impact the changes to the plans would have. It was also the LPA that decided if the planning application was acceptable and granted permission for the development. The LPA could have still decided to approve the application had the Council maintained its initial objection if it considered the proposal was acceptable in planning terms.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman