Summary: X complains about the way the Council has dealt with their communications about a planning decision made in 2020, and a subsequent complaint. We have concluded the investigation on the basis the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council has incorrectly passed planning permission for a development without carrying out appropriate site stability assessment.
2. X also complains the Council has not adequately responded to their correspondence. Specifically:

1. X requested the Council share its Demolition Management Strategy, Construction Management Plan and Drainage Strategy and supporting documents with local residents and the Council did not;
2. X’s solicitor requested a meeting to discuss the Council’s decision to discharge certain conditions and the development in Feb 2023 and the Council did not respond; and
3. The Council failed to respond to their emails.

3. X also complains the Council has not confirmed whether X’s objections to discharging conditions were considered.
4. X says the Council has failed to adhere to its complaints handling process.
5. X is seeking a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. X complained the Council did not place site notices in accordance with its policy, in 2020. They also complain the Council did not carry out a site stability inspection before granting permission at that time.
9. These complaints are out of time. There is nothing to be gained by applying our discretion to look at these complaints now.
10. The Council says it did put up site notices. Whether it did or not would not lead to any change in the permission decision now. As to the site stability assessment, the Council is not obliged to ensure this is done before granting permission. Once permission is granted, it is for the developer to carry out due diligence regarding the building work.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I have considered information provided by the Council and X, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
12. X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. The comments received have been considered in reaching this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

13. The Council granted planning permission for a development neighbouring X’s property in 2020. The Council later discharged two of its planning conditions.
14. X complained the planning permission has been granted incorrectly and not in accordance with the Council’s policy. X also complained about the Council’s communications.
15. The Council said it did not share the Demolition Management Strategy, Construction Management Plan and Drainage Strategy and supporting documents with residents as this is not a part of its usual process, but made the documents available online following X’s complaint.
16. X’s solicitor requested a meeting with the Council, and the Council accepts it did not respond to this and other emails from X.
17. X asked the Council to show it had considered their objections about the Council’s decision to discharge two conditions, and the Council accepted it has not done this. It has however confirmed this did not make any difference to its planning permission or discharge of conditions decisions.
18. The Council’s complaints policy is available on its website. It states it will provide a stage one response within 20 days and a stage two response within 20 days of a request for that.
19. The Council’s stage one complaints response was provided more than three months after the complaint was made. Its stage two response was provided in a similar time.

Analysis and findings

20. There is a pattern of the Council failing to respond to concerns raised here. Cumulatively, this amounts to fault. There is also a failure to adhere to its complaints handling process which is also fault.
21. The Council has accepted its failings and has apologised. I am satisfied this is an appropriate personal remedy.
22. I do not consider there is anything to be achieved by asking the Council to make a notional financial remedy here. The complaint is brought by a residents property management company, and the remedy sought is £100,000. I do not therefore consider that a notional payment would go any way to remedy the situation for X. I am satisfied the Council's apology is an appropriate personal remedy.
23. In another recent complaint about planning, we recommended the Council review its complaints process and why it had not been followed. So, I have not repeated this recommendation here.

Back to top

Agreed action:

24. The Council will, within three months of the decision:
• Review how planning queries are responded to and implement processes to ensure they do not go unanswered.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have found the Council at fault and recommended a service improvement remedy to try to avoid a repeat of the identified fault.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman