Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allowing the complainant’s local area to become overdeveloped, particularly in relation to the impact on the highway and residential amenity. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council granting planning permission for a new school and houses, which he says has resulted in the local area becoming unsafe and overdeveloped, particularly in terms of the impact on the highway and his residential amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not directly caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. In relation to the first bullet point, we can 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)
5. We also 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning applications and the associated Planning Committee reports, available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate assessments; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above would apply to any parts of the complaint about the way the Council determined the planning applications for the new school in 2019 and a residential development in 2022. I see no good reasons why Mr X could not have contacted us sooner if he was unhappy about the way the Council determined those applications.
9. And even if this time restriction did not apply, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. This means we do not ask whether the Council could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it has done. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it has made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
10. I consider there is not enough evidence of fault, in the way the Council considered the proposed developments and responded to the concerns Mr X subsequently raised, to justify starting an investigation in to his complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Planning policies may pull in different directions (e.g. in promoting residential development and protecting residential amenities). It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to planning policies and any other material considerations when determining a planning application.
• The views of consultees and objectors are summarised in the reports to the Planning Committee for each application.
• The reports go on to provide very detailed assessments of the proposals against the relevant planning policies and material considerations, including the highway impacts and what alterations/mitigation measures were needed.
• Officers are entitled to give their professional judgement on the planning merits of a proposal, even if Mr X disagrees with them.
• The Council’s parking enforcement vehicles visit schools across the borough on a rota basis, to enforce the “school keep clear” markings. The Council has also offered to schedule foot patrols at particularly problematic times in the area going forward.
• The Council visited Mr X’s property after he reported noise nuisance from pile driving at one of the developments. Although the noise was not deemed to be a statutory nuisance on that occasion, the officer did also liaise with the contractor, so that noise and vibration measurements could be taken for any future works of that nature.
• The Council has confirmed it inspects Mr X’s road on a monthly basis, and there is no evidence indicating significant deterioration.
• The Council has provided very detailed complaint responses during the complaints process, and has highlighted where Mr X can report certain issues in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman