Arun District Council (19 009 916)

Category : Planning > Other

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 23 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with planning applications to vary access arrangements to residential developments on land next to Mr and Mrs X’s home.

The complaint

  1. Mr and Mrs X complain about action taken by the Council when dealing with development on land next to their home. They say:
    • Council officers reached decisions on four planning applications, despite objections from the local Parish Council. They say these applications should have been considered by the Council’s planning committee.
    • Council officers failed to take account of objections and ongoing enforcement issues when granting planning permission for an access road to for new houses being build next to their home.
    • Council officers took account of an existing access to the site and claimed it had been established over time. Mr and Mrs X say this is, in fact, a temporary entrance to the site to allow access for construction vehicles.
    • The Council failed to ensure the applicant had served property notices to neighbouring landowners about an access road for the new development which will cross their land.
    • The Council has not granted planning permission to allow vehicles to gain access to the access road from the main road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

  1. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
  2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have spoken to Mr and Mrs X about their complaint and considered the information they have provided to the Ombudsman.
  2. I have also considered information about the planning applications and developments available to the public on the Council’s website.
  3. I have considered Mr and Mrs X’s previous complaints to the Ombudsman about the development next to their home and our decisions on those complaints.
  4. I have written to Mr and Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Council officers reached decisions on four planning applications, despite objections from the local Parish Council. They say these applications should have been considered by the Council’s planning committee.

  1. The Ombudsman has already considered a complaint from Mr and Mrs X about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for three residential properties on land next to their property in 2017. We declined to investigate the complaint as it was unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission.
  2. The Council has since received four further applications. Two of these were for full planning permission for semi-detached properties on neighbouring plots and two were to vary the site plans of existing planning permissions. This would result in changes to the layout of an access road to the new residential properties.
  3. Mr and Mrs X say the Parish Council objected to the applications to vary the site plans and access road and so the decision to vary the planning permission should have been made by the Council’s planning committee. This is because the Council’s policies say applications should be considered by planning committee if a parish council raises an objection.
  4. In the Council’s officer reports for two applications the Council acknowledges that the Parish Council objected to the plans. However, the Parish Council later withdrew its objection because the Highway Authority “are now happy with the scheme”.
  5. Therefore, there is no fault in these applications being considered by officers.
  6. The other two applications were considered by the Council’s planning committee. This is because they were full planning applications for the new houses and access road. Both of these applications relate to plots which are not adjacent to Mr and Mrs X’s home. Therefore, I cannot continue to investigate the Council’s actions regarding these applications as any potential injustice to Mr and Mrs X is not significant.

Council officers failed to take account of objections and ongoing enforcement issues when granting planning permission for an access road to new houses being build next to their home.

  1. Case office reports regarding two applications for the access note Mr and Mrs X’s objections as well as enforcement investigations into whether there was already an established access onto the site.
  2. The Council concluded that permission had already been granted for access to the site when planning permission was first granted for the properties. The applications being considered was to vary those access arrangements.
  3. Mr and Mrs X say they have evidence that the Council did not grant planning permission for access to the site in 2017. I have looked at the Council’s planning decision which makes clear reference to visibility splays being approved and needing to be in place before the houses are occupied. Therefore, it seems clear that permission for access to the site was granted in 2017.
  4. The Council has considered Mr and Mrs X’s objections and comments on the two applications for the access road. Therefore, I find no fault.
  5. As set out above the other two applications relate to plots which are not adjacent to Mr and Mrs X’s home. Therefore, I cannot continue to investigate the Council’s actions regarding these applications as any potential injustice to Mr and Mrs X is not significant.

Council officers took account of an existing access to the site and claimed it had been established over time. Mr and Mrs X say this is, in fact, a temporary entrance to the site to allow access for construction vehicles.

  1. When the Council considered the two applications relating to the new access road it concluded that there had been an existing access on site in the form of a gate since the mid-1990s and a dropped kerb since 2009. Mr and Mrs X dispute that such an access ever existed.
  2. However, the Council granted planning permission for the properties some time ago and the decision has already been considered by the Ombudsman in 2017. The decision to grant planning permission included permission for an access road onto the site. The applications complained of now relate to applications to vary the access arrangements.
  3. Planning permission has now been granted for the new access road. The Council did not take account of existing access arrangements aside from the previous planning permission it had granted. The Council concerned itself with ability of traffic to enter and exit the site safely. It concluded the access arrangements were safe after consulting the Highways Authority.
  4. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission or its refusal to take action over the temporary access arrangements.

The Council failed to ensure the applicant had served property notices to neighbouring landowners about an access road for the new development which will cross their land.

  1. The proposed access road does not cross onto land owned by Mr and Mrs X. Therefore, any failure by the Council to ensure that proper notices were served would not result in an injustice to them.
  2. For that reason, I cannot justify continuing the investigate this part of their complaint.

The Council has not granted planning permission to allow vehicles to gain access to the access road from the main road.

  1. Mr and Mrs X’s property will not be served by the new access road. Therefore, any fault by the Council has not caused them a significant injustice that would warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I have found no fault.
  2. I have also discontinued parts of my investigation into the complaint where there is no or no significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X as a result of any potential fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings