Summary: Mrs X complained about the Authority’s handling of her request for her property be considered for residential development. We will not investigate this complaint further. We would be unlikely find evidence of fault in the decision-making process, to recommend a remedy or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Authority’s handling of her request for her land to be considered for residential development. She also complained about how she was treated by Council officers during this process.
2. She says this caused significant distress and has prevented her from being able to build a property that would enhance the local community.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Authority as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Authority had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Several years ago, Mrs X inherited a parcel of land from her father. Both she and her late father applied unsuccessfully for planning permission to build a house here. This included an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
8. Mrs X also applied for her land to be included within the Local Plan as being suitable for residential development. This was also unsuccessful.
9. In later 2024, Mrs X requested pre-planning advice from the Council. She was provided with a written explanation as to why it was highly unlikely planning permission would be granted.
10. Mrs X complained to the Authority because she believed the wrong decision was being made. She was also dissatisfied with how she had been treated by several officers.
11. Her complaint was not upheld. She then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

12. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant.
13. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:

• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any fault caused a significant injustice?

14. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide not to investigate or to end an investigation we have already started.
15. I should not investigate this complaint further. This is because:

• we are unlikely to find enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. The Authority has provided Mrs X with a detailed and comprehensive explanation as to why her complaint was not upheld. She has also been provided with written pre-planning advice giving the reasons why she is unlikely to obtain planning consent. Some of Mrs X’s areas of complaint were how she was spoken to by officers. These complaints have been satisfactorily addressed during the Authority’s complaint handling and any further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
• we are also unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome for Mrs X. She says she would like the Authority to change its position regarding the planning status of her land. The Ombudsman does not have the power to do this.
• questions relating to the planning merits of Mrs X’s land are not for us to decide. Mrs X says the Authority had no reason to refuse her applications, or provide negative pre-planning advice, particularly as others have been successful. But it is the Authority’s decision, not ours, to determine this issue. We are not an appeal body or a court and so, in the absence of evidence of fault, we will not determine whether a judgement made on an individual case is correct.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint further. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Authority responded to Mrs X’s request for her land to be considered for residential development. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman