Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not putting in planning controls for increased traffic going to a school site through her road and deciding not to take planning enforcement action against the school. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The planning application processes happened long ago and investigation would not achieve a different outcome now.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in a road which leads to the entrance of a school with sports facilities. She complains the Council has:
1. decided not to take planning enforce action against the school;
2. failed to put in planning controls for increased traffic accessing the school site through her road.
2. Mrs X says the increased traffic, noise, fumes and light pollution has caused distress, stress, loss of sleep and diminished health for residents. She says there have been arguments and upsetting incidents between drivers and with residents. Mrs X says the traffic makes the road unsafe for residents and pupils and the noise makes the area anti-social. She says she has been passed between the Council, the county council and the school without any action. Mrs X wants the Ombudsman to find out who is responsible for the health and safety of road users and the health and wellbeing of residents of her street.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power held by local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decisions on whether to use their powers. National government guidance advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is significant harm caused by an identified planning breach. Where officers do not find a planning breach against which they can enforce, they would not do so.
8. In response to Mrs X’s concerns, the Council reviewed the site’s planning record and the permissions granted. Officers found no planning permission involving the access through Mrs X’s street had been granted within the relevant timescales allowing them to take enforcement action. They noted an increase in parking spaces on the site had not benefitted from permission but that this change had also happened outside the enforcement time period. Officers concluded there was no breach of planning control against which they could now take any planning enforcement action.
9. Officers gathered and assessed the relevant information to inform their decision not to use their discretionary enforcement powers here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement process to warrant investigation. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. Mrs X has also complained the planning permissions granted to the site did not include enough controls on traffic using the access through her street. The planning applicant has had those permissions in place for many years. The time for a complaint about the planning application processes has passed many years ago. Investigation of those processes would not result in a different planning outcome such as more traffic conditions now, so we will not investigate.
11. We note Mrs X is concerned the Council may not have visited the area to assess the impact on the street of increased traffic use of the site entrance. But this Council’s role was in the planning processes for the site, not current highways issues. We understand Mrs X contacted the planning department of the local county council within the last few years. Mrs X may wish to put her concerns about increased traffic on her street to the highways department of the county council. It would be for those officers at the local highways authority to consider whether the issues she reports give them grounds to take any action.
12. We realise Mrs X has raised residents’ concerns with the school and considers it has not taken actions she considers it should have. We do not have jurisdiction over the management at the school and cannot investigate its actions.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• the planning application processes happened long ago and investigation would not achieve a different outcome now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman