Summary: The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant a 20-year lease for a car park to a developer who included it in his planning application for a site near her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to grant a long lease on a car park which she says supported a developer’s application for a large development near her home. She says previous applications have been refused by the Council on the grounds of lack of parking. This lease enabled him to submit a new application including council property. She says an approval of the development would result in increased traffic movements affecting her privacy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Ms X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X says the Council granted a 20-year lease to a local developer who has made several previous planning applications for a large development near her home. She says the applications were previously refused due to lack of parking and that this long lease enables the developer to include it in a new application to address the parking issue. She says the Council should not have supported the application by its actions and that the car park should have been offered for sale or other commercial use.
5. The Council says the lease was already held by the developer for the previous nine years and the site had limited alternative uses. It was not required to market the site commercially and its officers took legal advice to obtain the best value market rent for the site. This was a decision which officers had delegated authority to make.
6. The inclusion of the site within a planning application was one which the developer could legally make. The planning procedure does not consider land ownership as a material consideration. The application would be determined on planning principles separate from the leasing issue. If refused the developer could appeal the decision as he has done previously.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman