Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning enforcement because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a lack of planning enforcement is causing parking problems where he lives.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that a planning permission for a property near his house required the provision of two parking spaces. He says that the provision is inadequate which has led to unreasonable street parking by the owners.
6. The Council says that a Planning Enforcement Officer visited and was satisfied that the provision was acceptable in relation to the approved plans in planning application.
7. The Council says that enforcement action could only be taken where the development did not accord with the approved plans. In this case the parking achieved this. The fact that the owners choose to park on the street and not use all their spaces could not be enforced as the planning permission did not require that parking only ever take place in these spaces.
8. Any parking which obstructs a highway or access is a matter for the Police and not the Council.
9. Councils can take enforcement action if they find planning rules have been breached. However, councils should not take enforcement action just because there has been a breach of planning control.
10. Planning enforcement is discretionary and formal action should happen only when it would be a proportionate response to the breach. When deciding whether to enforce, councils should consider the likely impact of harm to the public and whether they might grant approval if they were to receive an application for the development or use.
11. As planning enforcement action is discretionary, councils may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating improvements, seeking an assurance or undertaking, or requesting submission of a planning application so they can formally consider the issues.
12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
13. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take enforcement action. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman