Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to allow him to retain wooden posts he erected around his grass verges. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because Mr X has appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably expect him to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council was wrong to tell him it could not grant planning permission for the wooden posts he had erected around his grass verges due to conservation reasons when there are numerous examples of posts installed around the town.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals including those about a decision to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives in a conservation area. He installed wooden posts around the grass verges of his property to protect them from vehicle damage.
7. When the Council became aware of them it told Mr X he would need to seek retrospective permission to retain them.
8. Mr X asked the Council for a form and details of the costs involved but it then advised him that permission would not be granted based on a statement from the town council that the posts contravened the conservation status of the area. According to the Council’s policy on post and bollard requests, if the town or parish council does not approve of their installation no further action is taken.
9. Mr X removed the posts. However, believing the town council’s position to be duplicitous when there are examples throughout the town of posts installed in more prominent positions of historic interest, Mr X says the Council should withdraw its refusal and pay for the re-installation of his posts.

Assessment

10. If the Council will not grant any post/bollard applications if it receives objections from the town or parish council, this would appear to be a fettering of its discretion because the Council is the body responsible for determining applications.
11. However, Mr X did not actually make an application and it is open to him to do so. If the Council refuses permission and he wishes to challenge its decision he can appeal to the Planning Inspector. As this alternative remedy is available and we would reasonably expect him to make use of it, his complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be pursued.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X questions why posts were accepted which have more prominence in the town than the posts he had installed and why posts in other locations have been allowed to protect grass verges. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to make decisions on the acceptability or otherwise of posts/bollards. This is a matter for councils and if a decision is reached with which an applicant disagrees then the applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspector who will determine the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably expect him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman