Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of planning matters in relation to a property Mr X bought. This because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council reneged on the planning permission it had granted by using conditions attached to the permission to deny him the legal right to purchase the complete area of land that had been agreed between him and the developer. He says it did this at the behest of a neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council granted planning permission for the building of a housing estate subject to various conditions, some of which required the submission of further details for the Council to agree. These included conditions relating to final details of hard and soft landscaping over the development and covering boundaries and a landscape buffer zone at the back of the property Mr X bought. Mr X bought his property in advance of the discharge of these conditions.
7. After his purchase the Council agreed the landscaping and extent of the buffer zone and Mr X found he was excluded from an area of land he had understood from the developers he had purchased as part of his plot.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about its actions saying it had failed to protect his amenity and enjoyment of his property. He said it had fixed the curtilage of his plot at the time it granted planning permission and that it had subsequently inappropriately amended it to satisfy a neighbour.
9. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council pointed out that he had purchased his property prior to the conditions being discharged at his own risk. It explained in some detail the planning process followed when such conditions are attached to planning permissions and it found no fault in the way it had handled matters.
10. While Mr X is no doubt upset that the land he thought he was purchasing was smaller than he had understood it to be, I have seen no evidence to suggest fault by the Council. The onus was on Mr X and his advisers to identify any matters which might have impacted on his purchase, like the outstanding conditions, which until discharge, are not settled. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was any dubious interaction between the neighbour and the Council as Mr X claims.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman