Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for works on land which the complainant says the applicant did not own. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused significant injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council ignored her objections that a neighbour’s planning application related to works on land which she owned.
2. Miss X says she has incurred costs taking legal action against her neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman can investigate 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 directly caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included some of their complaint correspondence and the delegated report for the planning application.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has directly caused the complainant a significant injustice. In reaching this view I am mindful that:
• the responsibility for correctly completing the ownership certificate lays with the applicant. It is not the role of the planning authority to determine land ownership, and it is not responsible for checking if a landowner has consented to an applicant’s proposed development.
• Even if the applicant had served an ownership notice on Miss X, this would not have affected the assessment of the proposal itself, as land ownership rights are not a material planning consideration.
• Planning permission is separate from, and does not override, ownership rights. In other words, by granting planning permission the Council has not given permission for the applicant to develop land it does not own. If the applicant believed he owned land that Miss X believed belonged to her, then that was a civil matter for them to resolve, not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council has caused her a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman