Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with reports of breaches of planning control and failure to communicate with the complainant. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the complainant has not suffered a significant personal injustice, to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about:
• a lack of communication
• the Councils ignoring his reports of breaches of planning control; and
• a failure to consult an ecologist on a recent planning application.
2. He says he has had to stop using a cycleway and feels uneasy when walking past the site because the footpath is obstructed with cars for sale.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has confirmed it only issues responses and updates to reports of breaches of planning control once investigations are complete. This is a position the Council is entitled to take.
7. The Council has also confirmed it has investigated all reports of breaches of planning control made by Mr X. A breach caused by unauthorised storage containers to the rear of the site in question has been regularised following approval of a retrospective planning application. It says it did not consult with the ecologist as none of the land within the applicant’s ownership is covered by or impacts on ancient woodland. The Planning Officer considered the distance between the ancient woodland and the application site did not warrant consultation with the ecologist or Forestry Commission.
8. It says all reports of breaches of planning control have been considered and either regularised or closed with no further action required.
9. Mr X says has had to stop cycling along the cycleway and feels ‘uneasy’ walking past the site because cars for sale have been placed over the footpath. However, from the information I have seen there are footpaths on both side of the road. I understand Mr X is not happy with the appearance of the road and what he considers to be a negative impact on the neighbourhood. However, I do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of breaches of planning control or the retrospective planning application; and
• we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman