Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement as a highways consultee on a planning application for a new development and junction near his property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a junction on to an A-road which he says has been determined as dangerous during an earlier planning application relating to his property. An application for a new retail development was granted planning permission in 2020 by the local planning authority (LPA), with the Council acting as a consultee in its highways authority (HA) role.
2. Mr X complains the Council has improperly supported the new development to install another junction opposite the existing dangerous junction.
3. Mr X says the new junction will have an ‘adverse effect’ on existing users when built, as the area is already dangerous. He wants the new junction serving the development to be moved away from the existing junction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

7. The authority which decided to grant permission for the development was the LPA. The Council against which Mr X has complained is the HA. The role of the Council as the HA is to give its professional judgement to the LPA on highways matters on planning applications the LPA has received and must decide. So I have considered whether there are grounds for us to investigate the actions of the HA in its limited involvement with the planning application about which Mr X has complained.
8. From the evidence I have seen, the LPA consulted the HA about the application twice. LPA officers received information from the applicant about highways issues. This included:
• the site location plan;
• the proposed design of the development and its junction;
• a road safety audit; and
• traffic, transport and accident data.
9. The HA considered the information, reached its views and recommended various highways conditions for the proposed development. The HA passed this to the LPA for inclusion in its own planning decision-making process. The LPA noted the HA’s comments and incorporated them into its planning decision.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault by the HA here to warrant our investigation of its highways consultee role in this planning matter. The HA followed the proper process to reach its professional judgement on the application’s highways issues. I realise Mr X may disagree with the Council’s views on the matter. But it is not fault for a council to properly take a view with which someone disagrees.
11. In reaching my view that we should not investigate, I also take into account we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint: for the new junction to be moved. The decision that the location of the development’s vehicle access is acceptable in planning terms was made by the LPA, not by this Council. Moving the access junction would now require a change to the planning permission granted to the developer by the LPA, not a change to any decision made by the HA in its highways advice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigation;
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman