Lake District National Park Authority (22 006 705)
Category : Planning > Enforcement
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 16 Jul 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- Ms X complains that her neighbour created a tarmac area without planning permission which has created a change of use.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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, or
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Ms X says that her neighbour has tarmacked over an area which may now lead to flooding problems for herself.
- The Council investigated the complaint and concluded that the development was Permitted Development which means it could be carried out without planning permission.
- The Council explained that, as the area was not a driveway, the obligation to have planning permission (with drainage) did not apply. The works carried out therefore could not be the subject of enforcement action.
- The Planning Officer’s view was based upon a site visit. I am satisfied that the Council was fully aware of the facts in this case and therefore its conclusion, that no planning permission was required, was reached without fault. Ms X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman