Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a neighbour’s planning application before they brought the property. He says the planning application misrepresented the boundary and proposed building an extension on land partly owned by his partner. He says this caused stress to him and his partner. He wants the Council to investigate whether a criminal offence has taken place and apply the suitable sanctions.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained a neighbour submitted a planning application with a certificate of ownership stating they owned the land for the proposed development. He said the Council still approved the application knowing false information had been submitted.
7. The Council checked the Land Registry and found no evidence the architect knowingly gave false information. After reviewing all the facts, the Council was satisfied that it had considered the relevant laws and that its decision did not harm neighbouring property owners. I understand Mr X disagrees. But it is the applicant’s responsibility to submit the correct ownership certificate with their application and the Council has explained why it was satisfied with the information it received.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council said, when reviewing the application, it did not carry out a factual analysis of the hedgerow and vegetation. It told Mr X that even if it had corrected this, the hedgerow and vegetation were not protected, so this would have been unlikely to affect its decision. It also explained that it can take enforcement action if the development does not follow the approved plans.
10. Mr X says the development will be built on land not owned by the applicant. But it is not for the Council to get involved in landownership issues. Instead, this will be a civil matter between the relevant property owners.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman