Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to require an unauthorised access to be closed. The complainant appealed to the Planning Inspector so the matter is therefore outside our jurisdiction. The new owner has reopened the access, but this has not caused the complainant any injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council:
• Rejected her retrospective application for a driveway access to her former property and required her to close it and restore the hedgerow
• Has allowed the new owner to keep the reopened access
2. Mrs X says this is unfair and she wants compensation for the reduced amount she received when she sold the property without the access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. 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 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

5. I considered information provided by the Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X opened a driveway access onto the highway at her former home. She made a retrospective planning application for the access. The Council refused the application. Mrs X appealed to the Planning Inspector who dismissed her appeal. The Council asked her to close the access and she complied.
8. Mrs X sold the property. She complains the new owner has opened the access. She says this is unfair and believes the lack of access reduced the property valuation. Mrs X wants the Council to pay her compensation of up to 20% of the valuation of her former property.
9. We cannot consider the Council’s actions regarding the access. Mrs X’s appeal to the Planning Inspector and all matters relating to this are therefore outside our jurisdiction.
10. Mrs X complains the Council is allowing the new owner to keep the reopened access. The Council confirms the access being open is not sufficient to prove a breach of planning control has taken place. It has written to the new owner confirming it will take formal enforcement action is it receives evidence of a breach of planning control.
11. I understand Mrs X believes this is unfair as she had to close the access. However, the fact the new owner is permitted to keep the access if it is not used for vehicles does not cause her any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• All concerns about the decision to refuse her planning application for the driveway access is outside our jurisdiction as she appealed to the Planning Inspector.
• The Council’s decision to allow the new owner to reopen the access if it is not used for vehicles does not cause Mrs X any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman