Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a planning application and its intent to sell land. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Acted without honesty, openness, or integrity about a planning application and the proposed sale of public land, which he considers misconduct in public office.
2. Wasted public money on a flawed planning application which was rejected.
3. Refuses to hold public consultations on selling the land and ran an online advert with an inaccurate land description and a defective link to plans so they could not be viewed or objected to.
4. Refuses to recognise a continuing statutory trust that protects the public land.
5. Failed to investigate his complaint properly.
2. Mr X says as he lives near the land, the situation has caused him significant stress and time and trouble challenging the matter. He wants the Council to engage with the community, get independent lawyers to check the legality of the sale and review its processes including complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about how the Council handled the planning application for land near his home. This included allegations of officer misconduct, and the Council publishing an online advert containing an inaccurate description and defective link to the plans. The Council told Mr X it submitted a planning application for the site through an external agent, which is standard practice. The Planning Committee considered the proposal across two meetings and refused the application. Because the development did not go ahead, any injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s handling of the application or officer conduct is not significant enough to justify our involvement. While frustrating, the time Mr X spent objecting to the matter did not amount to a significant injustice because he achieved the outcome he wanted.
8. Mr X complained the Council refused to hold public consultations on the proposed land sale. Whether the Council had a statutory duty to consult under open space disposal rules depends on the underlying legal status of the land. The Council considers the site to be operational brownfield land, whereas Mr X contends it remains statutory parkland. The Ombudsman cannot decide the legal status of the land. However, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered if the land was part of the park. It has explained why it considers the site separate to the parkland and why it did not need to follow the open space disposal requirements. I understand Mr X disagrees, but this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
9. Mr X complained the Council wasted public money on the planning application. We investigate direct personal injustice to an individual, not the public concerns about how a council manages its budget. This matter concerns public finances and did not cause Mr X a direct personal injustice, different from any other local resident.
10. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his complaint. We do not normally investigate complaint handling as a stand-alone issue where we are not investigating the substantive matter. As we are not proposing to investigate, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling separately. Even if there was fault in the way the Council handled Mr X's complaint, I am unlikely to find this caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman