Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to enforce against a business owner creating a car park access in a front boundary wall. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation. Even if there has been fault by the Council here, the matter does not cause Mrs X sufficient personal injustice to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in the same area as a business which applied for planning permission for a car park.
2. Mrs X complains the Council has decided to allow the owner to keep a gate in a front boundary wall which was not part of the planning permission.
3. Mrs X says she has spent time and had trouble pursuing the matter. She says she has risked her name being disclosed to the owner. Mrs X wants:
• the Council to get the wall reinstated and the access removed, in line with the permitted plans;
• a full investigation of the Council’s practises.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council originally refused the owner permission for the front boundary wall access. The owner resubmitted plans in 2019 using an existing access instead and this was granted permission.
8. Mrs X reported to the Council that the owner had put in the front access where he had originally wanted it, part of the development which had been refused. The Council investigated and originally took the view there was a planning breach. The owner told the Council he had completed the permitted work in April 2020. After the development work was done, the front wall had been damaged. Rather than repair it with mismatched brick, he put in the access. The Council decided there was no planning breach to enforce regarding the work to the front wall. Mrs X does not believe the wall was accidentally damaged.
9. On receipt of Mrs X’s reports about the access in the front boundary wall, officers initially confirmed there had been a planning breach. But the Council gathered further information and determined there was no planning control breach they could enforce against. The Council determined the boundary wall access had been installed after the completion of the works allowed by the planning permission. Officers concluded the wall had no conservation area or listed status, they had no authority to prevent the removal of part of the wall after the development was done, so could not ask the owner to reinstate it.
10. It is unfortunate the Council initially stated there had been a planning breach. But we can only go behind a council’s professional judgement decision where there is fault in the process officers followed to make it which, but for the fault, would have led to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision not to enforce to warrant our investigation. Officers investigated the matter and took their decision based on the evidence they gathered.
11. I realise Mrs X disputes the owner’s evidence and disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
12. In any event, even if there has been fault by the Council in reaching its decision not to enforce here, there is insufficient personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matter to justify our investigation. I say this because Mrs X lives many metres away from the location of the front boundary wall access, so it has no significant impact on her and her property.
13. I recognise Mrs X may be annoyed that, in her view, the owner got the access he wanted by unfair means, or because she sees the access when travelling past. I do not consider that annoyance amounts to a significant personal injustice to her.
14. I note Mrs X says she has spent her time and been caused inconvenience in pursuing the matter. That is not an injustice caused by the Council’s actions. It was Mrs X’s decision to pursue the complaint about a development some distance from her home.
15. Mrs X also says that by complaining she ran the risk of her name being disclosed to the owner. It was Mrs X’s choice to run any risk of her name being revealed. In any event, the Council has not improperly disclosed Mrs X’s name, and Mrs X does not report that it has. We could not say that something which might have happened, but did not, amounts to a significant personal injustice giving us grounds to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the process it followed to make its decision not to enforce which warrants our investigation;
• even if there has been Council fault here, the matter does not cause Mrs X a significant personal injustice which would justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman