Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled its planning decisions. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to attach a planning condition requiring a new housing development’s access road to remain open to the public and be offered for highway adoption. She says the developer originally changed their plans to offer an open access road and turning circle following community objections. However, the Council later allowed the developer to gate off the access road. Ms X says this causes severe traffic congestion, creates safety risks and leads to waiting vehicles blocking nearby driveways. She wants the Council to revoke the approval for the gates, keep the road open, and ensure it is offered for highway adoption.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council granted planning permission for a residential development. As part of the statutory planning process, the Council consulted the local Highways Authority. The Highway Authority assessed the application and decided the layout was acceptable, raising no highway safety objections and seeking no condition to keep the road open or force public adoption.
6. Without a requirement or objection from the Highway Authority, the Council could not impose a condition restricting gates or force road adoption. Statements during the consultation stage about road adoption, open access or turning facilities did not create a legal duty for the Council to attach planning conditions. Road adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 is an agreement between a developer and the Highway Authority, not the District Council.
7. The Council said the Lawful Development Certificate approved in 2025 for the gate was a legal decision based on permitted development rules. Under this specific statutory process, local planning authorities cannot legally consider local amenity or neighbour objections. The Council said this turning facility works as intended regardless of whether the development is gated or not. We cannot consider any concerns about the application for retractable bollards as this application is yet to be decided by the Council.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The available evidence shows the Council considered the relevant information, exercised its professional judgement and explained its reasons for its decisions to Ms X. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman