Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application and a possible breach of planning control at a site near her home.

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 Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When a local authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
6. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the proposal before granting permission for the development. The case officer’s report for the application to amend the plans referred to resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. The officer also considered the acceptability of the proposed drainage for the site and the impact on neighbouring properties.
8. Ms X has raised concerns about the land levels at the site and says the development is causing flooding issues and her property has been damaged. Ms X says additional drainage should be installed. However, the Council did consider the impact of the land level changes before granting planning permission. An enforcement officer has also visited the site and confirmed the development is being built in line with the approved plans. Concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Ms X and the developer.
9. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the application was acceptable and that it had no grounds on which to take enforcement action, and the Ombudsman cannot question this unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application and if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman