Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a retrospective planning application for a parking bay. The development causes Mr X no significant personal injustice which warrants an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• has not properly assessed the safety of a parking space, created by cutting into a bank of earth and stone next to a highway;
• failed to reply to his complaint at stage two in a timely way.
2. Mr X says he and other members of the public are at risk of falling debris and earth should the bank collapse as they go past.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:
• answer his questions about the safety of the development;
• inspect the development and if it is unsafe, make it safe and charge the costs to the owner;
• prosecute the developer if they have broken the law;
• take disciplinary action against the planning officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s complaint relates to a retrospective planning application for a parking space. The owner did other works as part of an earlier planning application, and cut the parking space out of a bank of earth and stone. The parking space work was not covered by the original application. Mr X reported it to the Council.
7. A Council planning officer told the owner the work was unauthorised and the land must be returned to the previous state. The owner said they would submit a retrospective planning application for the works, which they did. The Council granted the permission and Mr X raised his complaint.
8. Even if I were to find fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the retrospective application, I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate. I says this because there is no evidence of a significant injustice caused to Mr X by the development.
9. Mr X says his injustice is that he is at risk from falling debris when going past the development. But the evidence shows Mr X lives almost three miles away from the parking space, in a different village. The development site is on a minor road, a cul-de-sac, serving a small number of properties on the outskirts of the village. I do not consider the development puts Mr X at a significant personal risk.
10. I understand Mr X feels strongly about the situation. But I do not consider the planning matter causes Mr X a significant personal injustice which would justify an Ombudsman investigation.
11. I recognise Mr X says he is also concerned for the safety of other members of the public. But the Ombudsman will normally only consider the claimed injustice of the person who has raised the complaint. My view is the evidence does not give the Ombudsman grounds to consider any injustice of other people who have not complained.
12. I note Mr X says he is concerned about possible risks from falling debris. He does not say that any such incidents have happened. The Ombudsman considers events which have already occurred. He cannot investigate a complaint on the basis of a concern about what might happen.
13. Where he is not intending to investigate the core issue in a complaint, the Ombudsman does not investigate a council’s complaint process in isolation. So the Ombudsman will not investigate any Council delay in providing its second response to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matters Mr X complains of do not cause him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman