Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application near to Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process and any fault there may have been has not caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about several aspects of the Council’s handling of a planning application. He said:
1. It had wrongly validated and considered the initial planning application based on a false ownership certificate.
2. It had still not consulted with one other landowner when it decided.
3. It was wrong not to consider the application at a committee, thus avoiding proper scrutiny.
4. It had not consulted with a statutory consultee.

2. Mr X is now left with a concern about several governance and planning compliance failures and wants an independent review of the Council’s approach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We 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 or continue 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.

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

3. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• Information provided by the complainant and the Council;
• information about the planning application, on the Council’s planning portal;
• the Council’s scheme of delegation to Officers, and;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is unhappy with several aspects of the way the Council handled a planning application.

Complaints a) and b)

6. In April 2025, the Council validated a planning application, based upon an application that had been submitted to it. The initial planning application stated the applicant was the sole owner of the land affected by their application.
7. The Council then had further information indicating that Mr X had ownership of land that affected the plans. Following this, the Council ensured notices were served on the relevant landowners, around four weeks before the planning application was decided.
8. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to accept and validate a planning application, based on the initial information it had. Nor are we likely to find fault it then decided on the application, after four weeks had elapsed, following service of the correct notices of landowners affected. In any case Mr X was nevertheless aware of the application, several weeks before he was served with a notice.
9. Mr X said, in his view that a third landowner had still not been served with a notice. Given Mr X is not directly affected by this aspect, and the person he indicates who was affected, was aware of the planning application before it was decided, I will not consider it further, because there is no evidence the fault he alleges, has caused him an injustice or would have changed the outcome.
10. Additionally, it is not the Council’s role, or the Ombudsman’s, to adjudicate in disputes about land ownership. Nonetheless, the officer report explains how this issue was considered. And even if it was shown the incorrect ownership certificate was completed, this did not prevent Mr X from objecting to the application.
11. Furthermore, the granting of planning permission does not overrule any private ownership or access rights, in relation to which the developer may need to obtain a separate consent in order to implement the development. That would be a private matter for the affected parties to resolve

Complaint c)

12. Mr X said the Council was at fault because it did not ask the Planning Committee to decide the application. The Council said it had raised the matter at its monthly agenda setting meeting with committee members and decided this was not required. Given that this decision is in line with the Council’s scheme of delegation, it is unlikely we would find any fault in that decision and so cannot criticise it.

Complaint d)

13. Mr X said despite a canal being in proximity, to the application site, the Council did not consult with The Canal and River Trust. On the evidence available, the Council carried out a site visit and so would have been aware of the character of the surrounding area.
14. Additionally, the planning case officer report referenced concerns, about whether the Trust ought to have been consulted and noted that part of the canal was disused. I consider it is unlikely that any fault here, will have substantially affected the decision, or outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process and any fault there may have been has not caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman