Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against a blocked public access. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. Part of the complaint is out of time.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to take planning enforcement action against a blocked public access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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)
3. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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

4. I considered the complainant's and Council's comments. The complainant has been given the opportunity to comment before a final decision has been made.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council granted planning permission in 2015 for a change of use from a House of Multiple Occupation to a guest house approximately a mile away from Mrs X. She says that there was a public access to the side of the house which had been use for many years by members of the public.
6. The Council says that no planning condition was placed on the planning permission because the path was not a definitive right of way.
7. The Ombudsman would not investigate this planning permission because it was made more than 12 months ago and I see no reason to disapply the 12 month rule above.
8. Mrs X is concerned that the applicant has tried to obtain which is not theirs. However, this is not a matter for the Council and I do not accept that this causes any significant injustice to Mrs X in any event given the distance from her house.
9. If the footpath is definitive and is blocked, Mrs X has a right to take legal action in the courts to remedy the matter. If Mrs X wishes to argue that the path should be a public footpath on the definitive map she can also initiate such action. However, in the absence of such legal status the Council would have no powers to remove any blockages.
10. The use of the building does not, in my view, cause any significant injustice to Mrs X given the distance from her house. I am satisfied that there is no fault by the Council as there is no breach of planning permission for the Council to enforce. Any failure to impose conditions in the planning permission is out of time.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the matter is partly out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.
     

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman