Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about parking issues near his home and possible planning breaches. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to address parking overspill associated with a local centre. He says that, despite repeated complaints, the Council has not enforced the travel plan or planning obligations linked to the development. Mr X says he cannot park near his home, causing stress and disruption. He wants the Council to take planning enforcement action and introduce measures to prevent overspill parking.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

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. Mr X complained parking associated with a local centre caused overspill parking in nearby residential streets. He said the Council has failed to enforce planning obligations and the travel plan relating to the development.
7. The Council explained to Mr X the land by the centre was not explicitly identified for any parking restrictions during the planning application process. It said the use of the land therefore did not conflict with the planning permission granted and did not amount to a breach of planning control. The Council was also satisfied there was not a breach in relation to the use of the land at the rear of the centre.
8. In relation to the travel plan, the Council told Mr X it considers concerns on a case-by-case basis. It said it reviewed the issues he raised and would re-engage with the centre to ensure suitable measures are in place to minimise impacts on the surrounding area.
9. Planning enforcement action is discretionary. Councils may decide the nature of a breach is not enough to warrant enforcement action. We cannot say the Council should have taken a particular view about a breach if it has acted properly by considering it. While Mr X disagrees with the Council's view, I am satisfied the Council considered his concerns and it shared its reasons for its position. On this basis, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
10. Mr X complained about the lack of available parking near his home. The Council explained that on-street parking is available to any motorist who complies with the restrictions shown on the relevant signage. It said it ran a borough-wide Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) scheme to manage parking demand in areas experiencing high parking pressure.
11. The Council noted that any proposal to introduce or amend a CPZ would need to follow a statutory process. It advised Mr X that a resident petition could help show local support for such a proposal. The Council explained that its complaints process could not be used to decide whether a CPZ should be introduced or amended. The information provided does not suggest the Council failed to consider Mr X's concerns or explain the options available to him.
12. Based on the information available, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's handling of either the planning enforcement matters or Mr X's concerns about on-street parking to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman