Stratford-on-Avon District Council (23 001 221)
Category : Planning > Planning applications
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 21 May 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
- Mr X says that the Council should not have granted planning permission for development on nearby land as this affected his rights to his access land.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X says that he owns land which would form part of an access to land which was the subject of a planning application for a change of use by a neighbour. He says that the Council did not properly check the planning application to determine whether or not Mr X’s land was owned by the applicant (or had permission from Mr X).
- The Council says that ownership of land is not required for planning permission. The applicant is required to either confirm ownership of the land in question or that they have notified the owner (in order to give them the right to object). Ownership of the land is not therefore required for planning permission to be granted.
- I note that, in this case, Mr X was aware of the planning application and objected. Therefore, the Council was aware of any ownership issues when the planning application was determined. Any dispute about ownership or access is a private matter and not for the Council or the Ombudsman.
- Mr X said in his objections that the highways access and parking arrangements were inadequate. The Planning Officer dealt with this issue and I note the Planning Officer had visited the site. I am satisfied that this matter was properly considered, despite Mr X’s disagreement.
- Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman