Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application to discharge a planning condition. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not give her an opportunity to object to a planning permission for visitor parking bays outside her home. She said the Council’s decision has caused her considerable stress. She would like the Council to quash the planning permission.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 Mrs X and the Council’s complaint responses.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted permission for a development in the area where Mrs X lives. The permission was subject to conditions. One of the conditions related to road surface finishes on the development before the Council adopted the road.
7. Mrs X complained the Council did not consult with her when it considered the planning application for the road surface finishes, including parking bays for the development.
8. In its Complaint response, the Council said it was not standard practice to carry out a full consultation when considering planning applications on the discharge of planning conditions. The Council also said it was not a requirement for highway authorities to consult the public about highway adoption details.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the proposed road surface finishes for the development before approving the application. The case officer’s report stated the detailed plans and sections of the proposals had been assessed by the Highways Engineer and they had no objection to the discharge of condition. There is no statutory requirement for the Council to consult with third parties when considering this type of application.
10. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to discharge the planning condition. As the Council properly considered the application to discharge the planning condition, it is unlikely that I would find fault.
11. There is also insufficient injustice to warrant an investigation. Previously, it was open to any member of the public to park outside Mrs X’s house. This remains the same after the changes to the road surface finishes, so there is not additional injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman