Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action to seek the installation of an access path from a nearby residential development on to recreational land. Even if there has been Council fault, the outcome does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation and there are insufficient public interest grounds for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives near a new residential estate, granted permission several years ago. Part of the plan for the estate was to have a footpath giving new residents access to neighbouring public recreational land owned by the Council. The developer did not install the path.
2. Mr X complains the Council has failed to enforce against the developer for not installing the path. Mr X says the lack of the path is a loss of public amenity and a detriment to local residents. He wants the Council to enforce the terms of the planning consent and make the developer install the path at its own cost.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has decided enforcement against the developer is not expedient for various reasons. Mr X disagrees and considers officers should enforce.
7. Even if there has been fault in the Council’s decision-making process, leading to its decision not to enforce, there is not enough personal injustice caused to Mr X by that decision nor the absence of the path to warrant us investigating. Mr X lives on another phase of the development. He has an access on to the recreational land near his house. He is not prevented from using the land by the lack of the path from the other part of the estate. The injustice caused to Mr X by the path not being built, and the Council’s decision not to enforce its installation, is not sufficient to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X says the impact of the absence of the path is a loss of public amenity and a detriment to local residents. I have considered whether there are public interest grounds for us to investigate here. The residents who may have used an access path on to the recreational land have lived there for several years without it. Some may now welcome that path, but others may not. Given Mr X does not live on that part of the estate where access to the land is affected by the lack of the path, he has no standing to speak for those who do live there. We cannot say Mr X’s view is representative of those residents who do not have an access path. In its complaint responses, the Council has indicated its intention to seek the views of the new residents about whether they would wish the access to the land to be pursued. That is the process those residents who consider themselves impacted by this matter may use to express their views on it. On the facts of this case, there are insufficient grounds for us to investigate as a public interest issue.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• even if there has been Council fault, the matters complained of do not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation; and
• there are insufficient public interest grounds for us to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman