Summary: The Ombudsman will has discontinued his investigation into Mr C’s complaint about how the Council placed safeguarding restrictions on his property. This is because the events happened too long ago to allow for a rigorous investigation. Furthermore, Mr C can serve a blight notice to the Council, and appeal to the Land Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about the Council’s decision to place safeguarding restriction on his property.
2. Mr C says the Council failed to inform him of its decision, and since becoming aware of the matter, the Council have not explained how it reached its decision.
3. Mr C says the Council’s decision has led to a serious blight on his property and it should either remove the restriction or offer to purchase Mr C’s property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• considered any relevant law and guidance; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
9. I also issued a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr C complained to the Surrey County Council about safeguarding restrictions placed on his property since the 1990’s. For clarification, Surrey County Council, which I shall refer to as SCC, are the Highways Authority and Mole Valley District Council, which I shall refer to as MVDC, are the Local Planning Authority.
11. MVDC say that it safeguarded the land on behalf of SCC, and that safeguarding had been in place as far back as 1988, and possibly earlier.
12. SCC have said that During the 1990’s it proposed improvements to the bypass, and it consulted with residents at the time. However, due to the time passed, supporting documents are not available.
13. The Council said that MVDC carried out a consultation of land designated for safeguarding between 2005 & 2008 as part of their Core Strategy consultation process.
14. The Council say there will be the opportunity for Mr C to object to the issue when MVDC consult on their new Local Plan in the near future.

Analysis

15. It can be difficult to investigate late complaints, because reliable records are less likely to exist, officers may find it difficult to explain the reasons for decisions they made, and because we are less able to remedy any injustice.
16. It is unclear exactly when the safeguarding of land was implemented, but the matter clearly goes back a very long time, with the most recent consultation taking place approximately ten years ago.
17. I accept that Mr C may not have been aware of the safeguarding restrictions until more recently. However, because of the amount of time that has passed it is very unlikely that the Ombudsman could carry out an effective investigation.
18. Planning proposals may adversely affect the market value of a property or make it difficult to sell. This is referred to as ‘blight’. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes it possible, under certain circumstances, to require relevant authorities to purchase properties effected by blight.
19. If Mr C believes his property has been devalued due to the implementation of safeguarding, and is therefore affected by blight, he has the option to serve the Council with a blight notice.
20. Mr C can then take his claim to the Land Tribunal if he wishes to continue the matter. The Land Tribunal considers disputes about land and its value and is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider Mr C’s claim for compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman