Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to provide information to the Planning Committee when it determined a Listed Building Consent application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council prevented a petition and evidence from being made available to the Planning Committee before it determined a Listed Building Consent application for works to a building next to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the application and the Planning Committee meeting available on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence to suggest fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, so Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged errors. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• It is not the Council’s role to adjudicate in land/boundary disputes, and it is not a consideration that could have been taken into account by the Planning Committee when determining the application. However, as Mr X had raised concerns about the ownership certificate submitted by the applicant, the Council took reasonable steps (by comparing Land Registry title plans with the red line plan) to satisfy itself the correct certificate had been submitted and the application was valid.
• Even if the wrong certificate had been signed, this did not prejudice Mr X as he was aware of the application and was able to submit objections.
• Although Listed Building Consent has been granted for the works, this does not override land ownership rights. In that regard, it would be open to Mr X to take civil action if he believes the works affect his own land.
• Mr X’s objections and petition are summarised in the report to the Planning Committee, and he was able to speak at the meeting, so the Members would have been aware of his main concerns.
• The Planning Committee could only consider the planning merits of the proposal, and could not have placed weight on Mr X’s concerns about the enforcement history pertaining to the site.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the planning outcome, so he has not been caused a significant personal injustice by the alleged errors.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman