Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s designation in its Local Plan of an area of their land which will negatively impact on the land’s development potential. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, say without individually consulting them, the Council included in its Local Plan an environmental corridor which covers land they had hoped to sell. The designation of their land in this way means its development potential has been negatively impacted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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 do not start or may decide not to continue with 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, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave the complainants the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr and Mrs X own land which they had hoped to sell to a developer. The Council’s Local Plan has designated part of this land as forming part of an environmental corridor which means its development value is negatively impacted.
8. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about this and that they had not been individually consulted about the designation even though their land is affected. In responding to their complaint, the Council set out the Local Plan process and the statutory consultation requirements in drawing it up. It provided information on how the Plan had been publicised and the ways residents and others could view consultation documents and make representations to the Council about its draft policies and proposals.
9. It is unfortunate Mr and Mrs X were unaware of the proposed designation of their land until told about it by a developer. However, the Council had not been obliged to consult with every resident individually, even those whose land might be affected by the proposals in the Plan. As the Council has pointed out, the Planning Inspector responsible for reviewing the legality and “soundness” of the preparation of the Local Plan accepted the consultation had been properly carried out and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman