Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered planning applications for development in her village. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered planning applications for development in her village.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X owns land close to dwellings in her village. Her property is approximately 100 yards from the development site. A planning application was submitted for development which aligned that land owned by Mrs X. The Council refused the planning application but the appeal was upheld by the Planning Inspector.
5. Mrs X objected to the planning application on the grounds that the applicant claimed ownership of land which was not his.
6. The Council says that ownership of land is not a planning consideration as planning permission does not override the need for the permission of the landowner to develop the land. The certificate of ownership relates to the need for the owner to have an opportunity to object to the planning application.
7. Mrs X says that she was not given the opportunity to object to the appeal to the Planning Inspector. The Planning Inspector granted planning permission for the outline planning permission for a dwelling based on planning need. It is reasonable to conclude that an objection to the planning application on the grounds of contested ownership would not succeed with the Planning Inspector (for the reason given by the Council). Mrs X does not live next to the land in question and her personal amenity would not be affected by the development.
8. I am not persuaded therefore that any failure on the Council’s part to notify her of a planning application would have made any difference to the outcome of the appeal. Mrs X has a private legal right against development which affects her land.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman