Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition for a development near her home. Ms X says the condition has not been complied with and significant damage has been caused to the access road serving the development site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council granted planning permission for a development at a site near Ms X’s home. The permission was subject to conditions, including a condition which said the development should not commence until a survey of the condition of the access serving the site had been submitted to and approved by the Council. The condition said a further survey should be completed after the development was finished and submitted to the Council along with a schedule of any remedial work needed to rectify any damage.
6. After the development was completed, the developer applied to discharge the planning condition. The Council considered the information provided and consulted highway officers before deciding the condition could be discharged.
7. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to discharge the planning condition and says the access road has been damaged. But the Council has explained why it considers the requirements of the condition have been complied with. It was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if the requirements had been met before discharging the condition, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman