Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not responded to all his emails about a new housing development near his home. He also complains about the way the Council considered the planning application.
2. Mr X wants the Council to get approval from all stakeholders to allow water flow into a specific stream.

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), 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. Mr X says the Council has failed to respond to all his correspondence about a planning application for a site near his home. The Council has provided a list of the multiple contacts officers have had with him about his queries. Officers have also met Mr X at his home to discuss his concerns.
7. Planning authorities must consider all material representations and objections it receives for planning applications. However, officers do not have to correspond with members of the public about a planning application.
8. I understand Mr X worries about the impact of the development on an existing flood risk to the area including his home.
9. The planning officer’s report on the scheme includes a summary of the objections received, including those made by Mr X. He also spoke to the Council’s planning committee when the application was considered. The report confirms the Council received no objections to the proposal from:
• the Environment Agency
• the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) team, subject to conditions; or
• the owner of the wharf next to the application site.
10. The planning officer’s report confirms the Council’s Drainage Engineer has been consulted and has no objection to the scheme providing further information about where pumped surface water will be discharged is provided. Drainage provision will also be secured as a condition.
11. Following consideration of the information provided and having heard from objectors and supporters of the scheme, the Council granted planning permission.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. From the information we have seen it is unlikely we would find fault in the process followed by the Council. It received objections and the matter came before the relevant planning committee. Mr X spoke to the committee, so the members were able to take his views into consideration when making their decision. Objections were also summarised in the officer’s report. The report also detailed the opinions of the Council’s Drainage Engineer.
13. Mr X wants the Council to seek approval from all major shareholders for the discharge of water into the stream. This is not something the Ombudsman can require the Council to do. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application and responded to Mr X’s correspondence. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman