Summary: The Council made mistakes in its planning documents and gave incorrect advice, causing Mr X to have to change plans for the development of the land he purchased. The Council has accepted fault, offered a financial remedy and has carried out service improvements. Mr X says the Council’s remedy does not go far enough as he says the Council’s actions have cost him tens of thousands of pounds. However we consider that the Council has sufficiently remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The Council accepted it made mistakes in its planning documents and gave Mr X, a developer, incorrect advice.
2. Mr X complains the Council’s actions have caused him frustration and cost him tens of thousands of pounds due to him avoidably having to reverse and amend development of the land.
3. He complains the financial remedy the Council has offered him does not sufficiently recognise the financial loss he has experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. Where we recommend payment as a remedy, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
9. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
10. I considered all comments made by Mr X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Planning permission

11. Planning permission is required for the development of land (including its material change of use). Planning permission may be granted subject to conditions relating to the development and use of land.
12. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.

What happened

13. A developer bought a plot of land that he could develop into several dwellings.
14. The plans for these dwellings were already approved when the developer bought the land. He started building to these plans exactly.
15. However the decision notice contained an error in the plans. It had the wrong planning references copied in, which meant some of the plans were not what the Council had meant to approve.
16. The Council accepted this was human error and told the developer to build to a revised set of plans instead, which Mr X did. It was the Council’s intention to then include those revised plans in the decision notice.
17. However the Council made another error and did not add those revised plans to the decision notice. It then received an objection to the ongoing development from a member of the public. At this stage it became apparent to the Council that Mr X was developing the land in a way that differed from any approved plans.
18. The Council had advised Mr X to build to these revised plans. However the Council then threatened Mr X with enforcement action for not following the plans that were included in the original grant of planning permission.
19. No enforcement action was ultimately taken and this was resolved by Mr X making an application for a variation of conditions. However during the period where enforcement was threatened, Mr X’s financial lender stopped providing money to the project and Mr X had to close the site for several months.
20. This application has now been approved, all parties have agreed to the plans and the building work is underway again.
21. During this period, Mr X changed direction of the development twice due to Council error. The changes included structural work such as moving beams, extending drainage and changing the windows and where they overlooked. The agreed buyer for the affected plot pulled out of the sale as they did not like the revised plans.
22. Mr X found a second buyer for the dwelling. However by that time, the variation of conditions application was underway and this took several months for the Council to approve. At that time, Mr X could not tell the buyer an expected timeframe when the property would be ready. Mr X said this caused the second buyer to also pull out of the sale.
23. At this stage, there is no buyer for the remaining dwelling. Mr X said this is partly due to recent changes in the economy and partly due to the Council’s actions and its impact on the project.
24. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters above. The Council responded and accepted that it had acted with fault. It said the planning references were wrong on the original planning application due to human error. It said it was then incorrect to advise him to develop to revised plans which did not at that time have a grant of planning permission.
25. The Council apologised for its mistakes and offered the following as a remedy for Mr X:
• a payment of £234 as a refund for the variation of conditions application fee;
• a financial payment of £500 to recognise the inconvenience he had been caused; and
• an agreement to meet the costs of ‘mitigation’ works that are required to be carried out to the windows of one dwelling due to issues with overlooking.
26. We asked the Council during our investigation what service improvements it had put in place to prevent recurrence of a similar fault in future. It said it had put the following measures in place:
• specific officers will now spot check plans to be approved when decision notices are signed off;
• the number of applications per planning officer have been reduced to help manage workload and reduce errors; and
• at weekly team meetings, officers are reminded of the importance of checking plan titles and revision numbers when listing plans.

My findings

27. The Council accepted that its errors caused Mr X to change direction of the development twice. Mr X said this cost him tens of thousands of pounds in additional works carried out and in lost profit due to two buyers pulling out of house sales.
28. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal. We decide on suitable remedies for injustice caused by council fault. Developers aim to make profits but many different factors can affect the scale of profit and I cannot speculate on what might have happened were it not for the faults in this case.
29. In addition to this, Mr X was following the Council’s advice when he changed to development which was not in accordance with any agreed plans. While it was fault for the Council to give him this advice, Mr X changed development at his own risk. As a developer it was up to him to seek appropriate legal and professional advice.
30. I agree with the Council that its actions amounted to fault and this fault caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. I consider that its apology, its offer to cover the cost of some of the works, its refund of the variation of conditions application fee and its financial remedy of £500 is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and these are consistent with our published guidance on remedies.
31. I also agree that its service improvements are appropriate. However I have requested that the Council provide evidence of these being carried out.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide evidence that it has carried out the agreed service improvements as set out in paragraph 26 of this decision statement; and
2. provide evidence that it has paid Mr X the agreed financial remedies as set out in paragraph 25 of this decision statement.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice. This has been appropriately remedied by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman