Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not enforcing a highways condition on a planning permission granted by another authority several years ago. Enforcement of these planning conditions is not an administrative power the Council has, so we cannot investigate this. We will also not investigate because we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property which moved its garden boundary. The neighbour received planning permission from the local planning authority (LPA) several years ago. Mr X complains a different council, Kent County Council (KCC), has failed to enforce the planning condition for a visibility splay.
2. Mr X says the situation is putting pedestrians’ lives at daily risk and puts him at risk of hitting a pedestrian, because of the loss of visibility when exiting his drive. He says he has had to take his neighbour to court, been caused financial loss and great stress, and is having counselling. Mr X wants the Council to enforce the planning condition relating to the visibility splay and hold the officers responsible to account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of the council complained of. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended).
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to us several years ago about the Council which granted the planning permission, the LPA. The LPA accepted there had been fault in its planning process in how it handled the visibility splay matter when granting the neighbour’s permission.
7. This complaint is that KCC has failed to enforce the condition on the planning permission relating to the visibility splay. KCC was the highways consultee on the application. But that consultee role in the planning process does not mean KCC has standing or powers to enforce conditions on the permission granted to Mr X’s neighbour. KCC cannot enforce a condition which is on a planning permission granted by a different authority, the LPA. As the planning authority which put the permission in place, it is the role of the LPA to consider any enforcement of its conditions, not KCC.
8. The outcome Mr X wants is for KCC to take enforcement action and officers to be held to account. We cannot order KCC to take enforcement action regarding the visibility splay condition for the reasons given above. We also cannot find KCC officers to be accountable for or the cause of any of Mr X’s injustices, which stem from the actions of his neighbour and a planning decision KCC officers did not make. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants is a further reason why we will not investigate.
9. We note Mr X says he has had to take his neighbour to court for damage done to and encroachment on to his property by the development. This is due to the actions of the neighbour, not an action or inaction by KCC. Property ownership and damage matters are private civil issues between Mr X and the neighbour and are for the courts to determine. They are not material issues within the planning process or which can be decided by that process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because planning enforcement of a permission granted by the LPA is not an administrative function held by the Council he has complained about, KCC.
11. We also will not investigate the complaint because we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman