Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to enforce a legal agreement attached to planning permission. This is because it is unlikely we will find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to use its power to enforce a legal agreement attached to planning permission to ensure vehicle access to a development site. He says this would delay emergency services reaching his home.

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.

(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 Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The developer of the housing estate where Mr X lives erected barriers that prevent entry onto unfinished estate roads. Mr X was concerned that this could delay the emergency services. Mr X said the Council had failed to use its powers to enforce the legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act regarding access roads and bus routes.
7. The Council contacted the Fire Service. The Fire Service confirmed that with the barriers in place, they could still reach properties on the estate within target times. As the barriers do not impact emergency service access to the site, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice because of the alleged fault.
8. The Council also explained that until the roads are finished to an adoptable standard it does not have the power or duty to compel the developer to remove the barriers. I am satisfied the Council has been working with the developer to ensure adoption, focussing initially on roads that give entry to the estate, as it can not adopt roads that are isolated from the public network.
9. Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with possible planning breaches at the site. Following a report of a planning breach, the Council opened an enforcement case. Enforcement action is currently on hold while the highway applications are waiting to be determined. This is to give the developer time to complete works and bring the highway up to an adoptable standard.
10. Councils do not need to take enforcement action just because there has been a planning breach. As the Council properly considered if enforcement action was necessary, it is unlikely we will find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X has also not suffered any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman