Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of highways access advice to the local planning authority in relation to Mr X’s and Mr Y’s proposed development. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants complain about the Council’s Highways Authority’s advice provided to the local planning authority in relation to their proposed development. They say initially at pre-application stage the Council did not object to the proposed access arrangements but that when consulted following the submission of their planning application, it changed its mind and said the visibility splays were inadequate. Their application was refused and they say they should have their costs refunded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants’ representative and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When the local planning authority refused their planning application, Mr X and Mr Y complained to the Council about the advice it had given the planning authority in connection with pre-application advice and their formal planning application.
7. The Council responded to explain its views in relation to access and applications at the site in question. It said its officer had taken the view at the initial site visit for the pre-application enquiry that while what was proposed was substandard, it was just about acceptable. It pointed out that it is because decisions can be difficult and finely balanced that it issues its “without prejudice” disclaimer and that when the officer visited again once the formal application had been received, he considered the access afresh and decided the proposals were not acceptable. This is disappointing for Mr X and Mr Y but it is not evidence of fault.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions taken by councils with which complainants do not agree. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information and there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in its handling of this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s and Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman