The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decisions to issue pavement licenses to a business. And the failure to enforce the terms of the licenses. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council granted a pavement license to a wine bar situated next to where he works. He says the license breaches the government guidance on outdoor seating.
Mr X also complains the Council has not taken enforcement action despite his evidence that it is breaching the terms of the license.
Mr X wants the license revoked as the placement of tables and chairs block the pavement forcing pedestrians into the road and blocking their view of traffic.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the Council should not have issued the license as the site does not meet government guidance which says: “in most circumstances 1500mm clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway” In this case the Council confirmed the tables and chairs will extend for most of the footway. But there are alternative, wider footways available which can be accessed via dropped kerbs.
The information issued by the government is guidance and there is no statutory requirement for a 1500mm clear space.
The information I have seen suggests the Council completed the required consultation on the application. And considered the restrictions on the site before deciding to issue a license.
As the Council followed the correct procedure before issuing the license, further investigation is unlikely to find fault.
In response to Mr X’s complaints about breaches of the license, the Council confirms it has: made unannounced visits to the bar and found no breaches of the license received no other complaints about the table and chairs received no reports of concern from either the Police or the Highways Authority about highway safety matters We cannot question the merits of a decision on whether the bar is breaching the pavement license conditions unless there is evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
In this case, Council officers have visited the site. They reached a professional judgement that there was no breach of the license conditions. This is the process we would expect to see before the Council makes a decision on whether the pavement license has been breached. I can see no fault in the way this decision was reached.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman