Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not properly notifying of a footpath and cycle link path between a new development and his road. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning processes which may have altered the planning outcome to warrant us investigating. Investigation of the notification process would not lead to a different outcome. Even if there was fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to justify us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a residential area next to a new housing development. The development received outline planning permission many years ago, then further detailed permission for the phase near Mr X’s property many years later. The later phase’s application and permission included a pedestrian and cycle link path between the new road and Mr X’s road. He complains the Council:
1. failed to post a planning notice at the site notifying about the link path;
2. failed to notify residents in any other way about the path.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him sleeplessness, angst, anger, fear and physical discomfort. He wants the Council to not proceed with the proposed path.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Council officers have confirmed Mr X was not on the list to receive a postal notification because he is not an immediate neighbour of the site for the new link path. The Council says it posted letters to those properties next to the site. It was not fault for the Council to only send letter notifications to those neighbouring properties. There is no planning notification duty for councils to write to all nearby residents. In respect of a planning notice at the site, Mr X says the Council did not put one up. The Council says it did. We cannot say the link path permission would have been refused if Mr X had known about it and objected. It would be speculation to say his or others’ objections to the path would have resulted in a different planning decision. Investigation of this issue would not now result in a different outcome.
6. Even if there has been Council fault here, we will not investigate. We recognise Mr X considers the road where he lives will no longer be a cul-de-sac. The installation of the link path gives access for pedestrians and cyclists, not cars, so the road will remain a no-through-route for those vehicles. We realise Mr X is upset and annoyed by the link path being installed because he does not agree with its installation. But his complaint does not mention any significant amenity impact on his property caused by the path. His road becoming accessible to pedestrians and cyclists to and from the new development does not have a significant impact on the amenity of his property amounting to a personal injustice to him. Any loss of opportunity to object to the path is also an insufficient injustice to him for us to investigate. There is insufficient significant injustice caused to Mr X by the planning process and its outcome to justify an investigation.
7. Mr X wants the Council to stop the installation of the link path. This would require the Council to revoke a planning permission granted for the relevant development phase. We cannot order councils to withdraw planning permissions they have granted. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning processes which may have altered the planning outcome to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the notification process would not lead to a different outcome; and
• even if there has been Council fault, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused by the matters complained of to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman