The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission for an extension to a school car park. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council granted retrospective planning permission for an extension to the car park at the school next to his home. He says the site is within flood zone two, but the Council did not obtain details of a drainage strategy or address issues required when considering the need for retrospective planning applications.
He wants the Council to ensure it will follow correct procedures in the future and ensure the school maintains its drains.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X including the Council’s response to his complaint and planning information on the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application. And we cannot require the Council to ensure the school maintains its drains. Therefore we cannot achieve the outcome sought.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman