Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a condition placed on planning permission or the Council’s decision to discharge the condition. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained the Council failed to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) and deliveries to and from a development site in line with the Planning Inspector’s decision. Mr X says the restrictions are necessary to prevent an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A planning application for a development in the area where Mr X lives was approved following an appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X says the Inspector set out requirements that must be met to ensure the development was acceptable. This included a requirement that an amended construction method statement (CMS) be submitted to and approved by the Council. The decision notice included a condition to reflect this. The developer has since submitted their CMS to the Council and the condition has been discharged.
6. Mr X says the approved CMS does not include restrictions on the permitted delivery times and HGV movements as it should. However, the Council has explained why it considers the condition imposed is in line with the schedule of conditions set out in the Inspector’s decision. It has also explained why it considered the details submitted by the developer to discharge the planning condition acceptable.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman