Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a project funded by Community Infrastructure Levy funds. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, has complained the Council failed to consult, communicate and engage with local residents regarding a project funded by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds. Ms X has also complained the Council carried out works for the project without the necessary planning permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I have also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X has complained about a project to develop an outdoor amenity space in the area where she lives. The project has been paid for with CIL funds and Ms X says the Council did not properly consult residents about the scheme. She also says works in the conservation area have been carried out without the necessary planning permission.
7. The Council looked into Ms X’s concerns about a possible planning breach. However, the Council’s enforcement officer decided the removal of the railings was permitted development. Ms X disagrees and disputes the Council’s interpretation of permitted development rights. However, I am satisfied the Council considered the matter before deciding the railings could be removed without applying for planning permission. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the works were permitted development and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the matter, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Ms X has also complained the Council failed to engage with the community about the project and did not carry out an equalities impact assessment. The Council says it did consider the equalities impact of the scheme but decided people with protected characteristics would not be negatively impacted by the project. The Council also consulted and engaged with residents about the plans for the garden. This included erecting posters and arranging drop-in sessions. As the Council considered these issues, and consulted the community about the scheme, it is unlikely I could find fault in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman