Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with reports about breaches of planning control. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with several planning breaches raised in relation to a large housing estate being built close to his property.
2. Mr X says the lack of enforcement impacted on access to his road, caused problems with lorries mistakenly turning into the estate where he lives and delaying other traffic.

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 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter
7. Mr X complains there were early deliveries, unauthorised weekend works, delays whilst lorries reversed out of his estate due to there being no sign to direct the lorries, excessive mud on the roads and advertisement hoardings installed without permission. Mr X says how the Council’s lack of enforcement action has caused anger and for him to lose faith in it.
8. Mr X says there were regular deliveries before the 7:30am for several months. While that might have caused some disruption for a limited period, I note Mr X’s home is separated from the road the lorries were using by other buildings. In the circumstances, I do not consider there is significant enough injustice to justify investigation.
9. Mr X says lorries trying to reach the development site mistakenly drove into his housing estate due to the lack of proper signs, causing delays while the lorries tried to manoeuvre back out. I understand it would have been frustrating for Mr X to have some of his journeys briefly delayed and mud on the road might have been concerning or frustrating. However, that is not significant enough injustice to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigation.
10. Mr X says he could hear noise from unauthorised weekend work whilst walking in the nearby countryside. I appreciate that might have affected Mr X’s enjoyment, however that is not significant enough for us to investigate.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with unauthorised advertisements and flags on the road leading to the new development. That does not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough for us to investigate.
12. I appreciate Mr X feels angered by the events and reports losing faith in the Council. However as explained above, we will only pursue complaints that cause significant enough injustice in practical terms to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman