Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control. And for the delay in deciding a retrospective planning application. We acknowledge the complainant found the matter stressful. However, we do not consider further investigation will add to that carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to stop developers dumping soil on a site next to their home. They say this damaged the environment and protected trees. They also complain the Council failed to listen to resident’s concerns about flooding and delayed in deciding a retrospective planning application for the site.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2023 the Council received reports of breaches of planning control on a site next to Mr and Mrs X’s home.
6. The Council confirms its tree consultant, enforcement officer and planning officer visited the site. It says it had given advice to the developer on tree protection. It also confirmed its drainage expert was working with the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) to make recommendations on the retrospective planning application it had received for the site.
7. The Council says it decided not to issue a temporary stop notice while it was considering the planning application. This is in line with national guidance , particularly as the Council considered it was likely that the planning application would be approved.
8. The Council apologised for the delay in determining the application and advised this was due to requiring information from the developer, advice from experts and the volume of work. It also said it was unable to identify the exact cause of the flooding and agree an acceptable solution. But it was not caused solely to soil being brought onto the site. Compacting of soil and significant rainfall were also contributing factors.
9. Once the developer submitted acceptable drainage solutions, the application was presented to the Council’s planning committee. It was approved in July 2024.
10. I understand Mr and Mrs X complain about the length of time taken to decide the retrospective planning application. However, the Council has apologised for this and explained the reasons for the delay. The Council is permitted to extend the deadline for determining planning applications with agreement from the applicant.
11. The Council has also explained why it decided not to take enforcement action while it was considering the planning application which was in line with national guidelines.
12. Mr and Mrs X raised concerns about flooding in their garden. The Council advised surface water run off issues were a civil matter between Mr and Mrs X and the developer.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because we consider further investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome. This is because the retrospective planning permission has now been approved. If any new breaches of planning control occur on the site, Mr and Mrs X can report these new issues to the Council for investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman