Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and approved a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. She says it:
• Failed to ensure the adequacy of the environmental information provided.
• Overlooked her evidence of a high-water table; and
• Also failed to follow the complaint procedure.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complains about the way the Council considered and approved a planning application for onshore electrical infrastructure.
6. The Council publicised the application. Many members of the public commented on the proposal, including Miss X.
7. The Council consulted the required statutory consultees. This includes the Environment Agency (EA).
8. The Council’s records show the EA responded to all three rounds of consultation. It initially objected to the proposal as it considered an assessment on coastal and tidal flood risk was not acceptable. However, the planning officer’s report on the scheme states the EA was ‘generally happy’ with the proposed cable route, but cable depth in certain areas would need to be approved at the detailed design stage.
9. The report also states the Environment Agency:

“Had no objections to the proposed mitigation measures in relation to the impacts in groundwater and contaminated land.”

10. I have read the EA’s full consultation response. I am satisfied that when commenting on the proposal it was fully aware of licences for boreholes and private water supplies in the area, confirming:

“We must protect their ability to abstract so any works considered will need to take into account these licences. We would not want to introduce, restrict or change the quantity of the water available for these abstractions.”

11. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions including (but not limited to) matters relating to:
• drainage
• the management of surface water and silt runoff
• contamination
• ecology and wildlife
• protection of watercourses; and
• a Construction Environmental Management Plan (including details oi the importation or movement of soil)

to be approved by the Council before work starts.

12. I understand Miss X believes the information provided to the Council is not detailed enough and that it ignored her concerns about the impact of the scheme on her home, business and private water supply.
13. However, from the information I have seen, the Council consulted with the relevant statutory consultees. It is entitled to rely on the responses from those consultees. In this case the EA appears to be the body responsible for considering matters about most of Miss X’s concerns. The EA indicated it is aware of the private water supplies and boreholes around the scheme and raised no objections. While Miss X’s objections are not specifically stated in the planning officer’s report, I have not seen enough evidence that her concerns were ignored.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered and approved the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman