Summary: Mr X complained about the Council requiring him to sign a Section 106 agreement as a condition of approving his planning application in 2018. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of and could have appealed against in 2018 which is outside the normal 12-period for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council requiring him to sign a Section 106 agreement in order to secure planning approval in 2018. He says that neighbours on either side of his property have been granted planning approval since then without having the same agreement requirements. He says he should be compensated for the £500 legal costs and £7,500 for having to demolish a bungalow with loss of income as part of the agreement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. 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)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:
5.  

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X applied for planning approval to build two houses on property he owns. He says he was forced to sign a Section 106 agreement as a condition before it was approved in 2018. He says the condition required him to demolish an existing bungalow before he started work on the new houses. This meant he lost income from the bungalow. He says this condition was not imposed on neighbours on either side of his property who were granted similar permission without the section 106 agreement. He feels this was unfair and that he should be compensated for the Council’s actions.
8. Mr X was not forced to sign the agreement. He could have refused and required the Council to determine the application without it. If it was refused and he felt it was unreasonable he could then have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate in 2017-18. He could have also appealed against any refusal of the Council to change the agreement when he learned of the amended approvals of his neighbours’ schemes.
9. Mr X says the neighbours’ applications were approved after his plans and that they should have had the same conditions. The Council says the neighbours’ applications were actually approved in 2015 and 2016. The applications subsequent to Mr X’s were applications to substitute the approved designs of the houses for different ones and not new applications in the way Mr X’s was.
10. The Council made his application conditional because of the existing approved schemes which could have led to overdevelopment. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to consider Mr X’s application now because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which he was aware of and could have appealed against in 2018 which is outside the normal 12-period for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman