Summary: Mr X complains about a 2015 planning decision taken in relation to a business site in his locale and the route taken by HGV traffic to access the site. We will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about a 2015 planning decision taken in relation to a business site in his locale and the route taken by HGV traffic to access the site. He says no account was taken of HGV traffic using an unsuitable route which has damaged his property and poses a risk of accident.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2015, the county council, now superseded by the current merged unitary authorities, refused planning permission for an application made by a business sited in Mr X’s locale. The applicant appealed this decision to the Planning Inspectorate which allowed the appeal, subject to conditions.
7. In 2020 Mr X complained to the current Council authority about HGV traffic accessing the site and causing damage to his property. The Council considered matters and confirmed its Highways Team would undertake highway works to mitigate issues with the turning of large vehicles, reinstate the verge by Mr X’s property and reset the kerb line. However, it told him that it would not take any planning enforcement action in relation to the planning decision and conditions made by the Planning Inspectorate, which it described as confused, because it was not expedient to do so. It said it had taken legal advice and that as the highway condition attached to the permission appeared unlawful, successful enforcement action would be unlikely.
8. While I understand Mr X may be disappointed by the Council’s decision, I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected it. The Planning Inspectorate took the decision to allow the appeal and the Council has considered recently whether it would be expedient to take enforcement action. It has decided it is not and we cannot review the merits of this decision.
9. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X says the route taken by the HGVs is unsuitable and that he fears further development of the business concerned. However, the Council has already considered and decided against taking enforcement action and if new if planning applications are submitted, these will be dealt with in the normal way with Mr X having the opportunity to comment on them. His complaints of nuisance caused by pollution from the business should be directed to the Council’s Environmental Health Team.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman