Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against the owner of the sports club adjacent to his house. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has not taken action against the owner of the sports club next to his house. He said the sports club breached a planning condition by exceeding the number of cars allowed to park there.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X lives next door to a sports club. The Council granted planning permission for a change of use from agricultural land to sports use and construction of access and parking for 50 cars in 2006.
8. Mr X said that frequently more than 50 cars park in and around the sports club car park. He reported this to the Council as a breach of a planning condition attached to the planning approval.
9. The Council said the condition says that 50 spaces shall be provided within the application site and should be retained at all times. It said the condition does not restrict or stipulate that parking for 50 cars must not be exceeded. It confirmed the owner had not breached the planning condition and the Council would not take enforcement action.
10. Enforcement action is discretionary, and the Council is entitled to make the decision not to pursue it. We cannot question this decision if it was made properly, and the Council can demonstrate that it considered the relevant factors.
11. I consider the Council investigated Mr X’s report of a breach of planning and made a considered decision not to pursue enforcement action. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman