Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to discharge a planning condition for a development. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to enforce a planning condition requiring a developer to arrange for a traffic regulation order to be implemented restricting parking on a development. Mr X says access to the development is restricted due to parked cars.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and information about the development from the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Planning permission for the development was granted a number of years ago. A condition was imposed on the planning permission requiring the developer to produce a long term parking management strategy along a bus loop. The condition said the strategy had to be approved by the Council.
7. The Council approved the developer’s strategy in 2020 and discharged the condition. The Council produced an officer report which considered the application. This noted that the size of the buses using the loop had reduced since the original application and that the developer had used private parking enforcement agents without concern since 2017 and would continue to do so.
8. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to discharge the condition. The condition did not require the developer to produce a traffic regulation order, simply to submit a parking management strategy for approval which it has done. The Council has taken account of the effectiveness of private parking enforcement and change in sizes of buses in reaching its decision. In the absence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision we cannot criticise the decision itself.
9. If Mr X is unhappy that he is being charged for private parking enforcement agents he should raise this with the development management company.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman