Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council decided to grant planning permission for a sports pavilion and football pitches near Ms X’s home. Also, in the way it decided not to make Ms X’s road permit parking only. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to publicise a planning application to develop a sports pavilion and football pitches near her home; and
• Refuses to act against antisocial and dangerous parking which occurs in her road during football tournaments.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a sports pavilion and associated works including seven football pitches. She says this causes antisocial and dangerous parking in her road during football tournaments.
6. In 2020, the Council received a planning application to demolish a changing room building and build a sports pavilion, car park, two artificial grass pitches and seven grass football pitches with associated engineering.
7. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and/ or site notice and/ or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
8. The Council publicised the application by erecting site notices and writing to the properties that shared a boundary with the site.
9. I understand Ms X believes the Council should have written to all occupiers of her road which is opposite the site. However, the Council is not obliged to do so. From the information I have seen the Council met its’ statutory requirement for publicising the application.
10. A planning officer prepared a report on the scheme.
11. The planning officer’s report considered the issues on parking on the site and the number of extra car trips created by the development. It noted all pitches will only be simultaneously occupied for a certain number of days each week and this will be for 30 to 40 weeks a year. The Highways Authority had no objections to the proposal.
12. The minutes show members of the planning committee debated the application before deciding to grant planning permissions with conditions.
13. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
14. On the information I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the planning application before deciding to grant permission.
15. Ms X also complains about the Council’s decision not to make her road permit parking only.
16. Following Ms X’s reports of dangerous parking in her road when tournaments take place at the football pitches, the Council confirms officers visited her road. It says officers visited on a weekday and during a weekend event. They noted:
• Residents in Ms X’s road benefit from off-road parking for two cars; and
• Less than 85% of kerbside space was occupied.
17. The Council’s published criteria for introducing parking permit schemes requires:
• 85% of kerbside parking space is occupied.
• Non resident parking is at or above one in four cars; and
• Objection to the scheme is less than 34% in the area.
18. The Council confirmed Ms X’s road does not meet the requirements for a permit parking scheme. It has also confirmed that providing a vehicle is:
• Taxed
• Insured; and
• has a valid MOT certificate

the driver is entitled to park their car in the highway if it is not causing an obstruction and is not a danger.

19. The Council also provided Ms X with a contact number for her to report issues such as:
• cars parking on double yellow lines
• cars parking in a permit only zone but without a permit during a restricted period; or
• obstructing a dropped kerb for an off-road drive.

In areas where there are no parking restrictions, the Council advised Ms X to report antisocial parking to the police. This includes parking that reduces visibility for road users or pavement parking.

20. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. As stated above, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council:
• considered the planning application
• responded to Ms X’s report of parking problems in her road; or
• in its response to her request to introduce permit parking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman