London Borough of Enfield (21 012 655)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 17 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a planning application for a dropped kerb. This is because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for a dropped kerb when it has allowed other properties in a similar position to her own to have one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Ms X.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Ms X lives on a classified road so when she sought consent from the Council to install a dropped kerb at her property, she had to submit a planning application.
  2. The Council refused permission for the dropped kerb, and in responding to Ms X’s complaint about its decision and that other properties in a similar position to hers had been allowed one, it explained each case is considered on its individual merits. It told Ms X that in her case, permission had been refused for a number of reasons, including loss of a street tree, road safety issues and increased pressure on on-street parking.
  3. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint. She had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the Council’s decision on her application. As we would reasonably have expected her to have used this alternative remedy, her complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because she had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

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