Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that no breach of planning control is occurring on the site next to the complainant’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision that no breach of planning control is occurring at the site next to her home.
2. She also complains the officer who investigated her report of a breach of planning control was not impartial and lied to her and her consultant.
3. Miss X wants the site gates locked between 6.30pm and 9.30am. She also wants the officer reprimanded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• 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 provided by Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X believes the planning permission for a community garden next to her home provides there is to be a lockable gate.
8. The planning permission and officer report is available to view on the Council’s website.
9. The permission dated March 2000 states:

“The fencing and gates hereby approved shall be colour coated within 28 days of the date of their erection on site , to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.”

And

“A scheme showing the details of the layout and any structures to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and such scheme as may be approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the area being brought into first use. For the following reasons: in order to secure the satisfactory use and occupation of the site”.

10. The planning officer’s report explains the proposal was to change use of land next to Miss X’s home from residential to a community garden. It says the garden will have fences and gates. As explained in paragraph nine above, the planning condition required the Council to approve details of the layout of any structures within the garden before it opened.
11. From the information I have seen I am satisfied with the Council’s investigation into Miss X’s report of a breach of planning control and its view that the garden must not be locked at any time. Also, given planning permission was granted 25 years ago, I consider that it is highly unlikely we could make sound findings given the passage of time.
12. I understand Miss X is unhappy the Officer who investigated her complaint has previously referred to her as vexatious. However, the Council confirm the officer is a senior, experienced planning officer and it is fitting they considered Miss X’s report of a breach of planning control. The Council also confirmed there is no evidence the officer lied to Miss X or her consultant.
13. We cannot be involved in personnel issues and therefore cannot require the Council to reprimand its officers.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision that no breach of planning permission has occurred. And we cannot require the Council to reprimand its staff so we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman