Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters relating to a vehicular access for a nearby property. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has not clarified whether it has granted planning permission for decorative gates at a nearby house to be used for vehicular access. Mr B says the Council should be able to clearly state whether such permission has been granted. Mr B says if such access was allowed by a Council grant of planning permission in 2017, this means the Council was negligent and he missed out on the opportunity to comment. Mr B says if this vehicular access does not benefit from planning permission, the Council should take enforcement action.

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 an investigation if we decide:

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr B. I viewed the area on Google Streetview.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr B had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered his comments.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B and the Council have been in detailed discussion about whether a grant of planning permission by the Council in 2017 provides planning permission for decorative gates at a nearby property to be used for vehicular access.
7. Mr B is not satisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint about this issue.
8. We will not investigate whether there was fault by the Council in the way it handled the 2017 planning application. This is because the information does not suggest the alleged fault has caused Mr B an injustice.
9. The Council has said that if the owner of the property uses these gates for vehicular access, a dropped kerb would be needed. So, the Council says this would require a new grant of planning permission from the Council because the property is on a classified road. The Council says it could refuse planning permission if, following consultation with the highway authority, it considers the dropped kerb to be a potential risk to the health and safety of the public.
10. So, the information strongly suggests the Council still has the opportunity to prevent these gates being used for vehicular access if it has concerns about highway safety. Mr B would also be able to comment on this application. This means it is highly unlikely any fault by the Council has caused Mr B an injustice.
11. Also, even if these gates are used for vehicular access, I have not seen any information to suggest Mr B is personally affected. So, I find Mr B has not suffered a significant injustice which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the claimed fault has not caused Mr B a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman