The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control at a development site near his home. Mr X says the developer has removed off street parking and not widened the road as they should have. Mr X says the Council has failed to take any action in relation to the planning breach and has put people’s lives and property in danger.
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Planning authorities can take enforcement action where there has been a breach of planning control. A breach of planning control includes circumstances where someone has built a development without permission or not complied with planning conditions. It is for the council to decide if there has been a breach of planning control and if it is expedient to take further action.
In this case, the Council granted planning permission for a residential development on land near Mr X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions, some of which needed to be complied with before works commenced.
Mr X complained to the Council as he said the developer had not widened a road before starting works as they should have. He said the developer instead narrowed the road by erecting bollards.
The Council looked into Mr X’s concerns but decided the planning condition had not been breached. It said that while road widening needs to take place before the properties are constructed, no properties have been built in the area Mr X has referred to. It said the works that have taken place were not affected by the planning condition. The Council also said barriers had been erected temporarily, but these did not narrow the lane.
I understand Mr X disagrees and says the road should have been widened before any works took place. But it was for the Council to decide if the planning conditions were breached and if further action was needed. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide there had not been a breach and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about possible planning breaches, it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mr X has also complained that the disabled parking bay he used has been removed by the developer. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said the developer had purchased the land where the parking bay was located. However, its parking team will consider a request to relocate the bay in line with the relevant criteria. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this response.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman