The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council publicised a planning application or how it considered concerns around sewage. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council failed to write him about a planning application near to his property. He said that meant it did not consider his objections before approving the application. He also complained the sewage system installed at the site was not suitable. He said the site’s existing cesspit leaked sewage onto his property and the new sewage treatment was built on top of his waterpipe.
Mr X wants the Council to have the existing cesspit removed, and for the new sewage treatment to be moved.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In the Council’s complaint response, it said it did not write to Mr X directly about the planning application as his property did not share a boundary with the application site. It said his property and the application site was separated by fields, and it did not have the resources to identify and notify owners of fields. The Council said it put up a site notice about the application and publicised it in the local press.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council publicised the planning application in line with statutory guidance, therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
In any event, the Council did consider the impact on Mr X’s property in its Officer’s Report. Because of the distance between his property and the application site, it said the development would not result in a loss of privacy. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate the alleged fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice.
We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council did not take appropriate action in response to his concerns about the sewage treatment and cesspit. In the Council’s complaint response, it said: Its Environmental Health Service had completed a site inspection and not found evidence of a public health problem caused by sewage or grey water affecting Mr X’s property or land. It said to contact Environmental Health if he had evidence of such a nuisance and it would reinspect.
Its Building Control inspected the site during construction, and it was satisfied the waste treatment installed was appropriate to the site and installed correctly.
The Council has completed site visits with appropriately qualified staff to investigate Mr X’s concerns. Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s findings, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaints. It is not a good use of public resources to consider complaint processes when we are not investigating the substantive issue. Therefore, we will not investigate this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman