Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to consult residents on proposed changes to the highway. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the complainant has not suffered sufficient personal injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council did not engage properly or consult residents on proposed changes to the highway which will affect on-street parking availability.
2. He also says the Council did not consult residents on a planning application. The applicant put in an application for a variation of an existing planning permission separately.
3. Mr X says the proposed changes to the road where he lives will affect the lives and wellbeing of residents. This includes his wife who is a registered disabled driver who will not be able to park outside their home.
4. He wants the Council to postpone the planned changes and work with residents to achieve a scheme which will not remove several on-street parking spaces.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X refers to a resident’s action group and the impact the proposed changes will have on other residents. However, he has not provided any written authority to complain for anyone else. I have therefore considered this complaint and the claimed injustice on Mr X only.
9. The first master plan for the area was approved in 2010. However, the application was withdrawn and replaced. The replacement plan followed the same principles for access and work in Mr X’s road.
10. Outline planning permission was granted in November 2018. This included the new access design, with a pedestrian crossing.
11. The detailed scheme for the site approved in 2021. This application included details of the access proposals and tree removal. The Council says it publicised the application which was subject to statutory consultation.
12. The Council says it is in the process of agreeing the detailed design with the developer for changes to the existing highway. Once agreed, if changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) are needed, they will be subject to public consultation.
13. Applicants can apply for non-material amendments to planning applications after they have received planning permission. Consultation is not required on such applications. And the Council as Local Planning Authority (LPA) cannot refuse to consider valid applications that it received.
14. The Council says:
• The existing parking bay on the road is about 90 metres long and provides space for a maximum of fifteen vehicles. There are twelve properties fronting the street in this location).
• On the approved plans, the bay to the north of the pedestrian crossing is 70 metres long (giving space for a maximum of eleven vehicles).
• The bay to the south is fourteen metres long (giving space for a maximum of two vehicles).
• This is a loss of two parking spaces.
15. The Council confirms it has asked the developer to review the layout to allow for another vehicle. This would mean a total loss of one on-street parking space in the road.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning applications.
• Any changes to the TRO covering Mr X’s road will be subject to public consultation and he will be able to make objections.
• I do not consider Mr X will suffer enough personal injustice from the loss of one on-street parking space to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman