Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for himself and three other people about the way the Council dealt with a planning application. He also says the Council failed to investigate his concerns about officer misconduct, and legal pressure from the Council about a private boundary.
2. He is seeking more than £16,000 to reimburse his legal fees plus £10,000 compensation for those involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with a planning application that covers part of some land owned by himself and the other complainants. In particular he says the Council:
• Failed to ensure ownership notices were served.
• Used an incorrect online decision date published
• Failed to consider or record his representations
• Failed to inform the committee of an ongoing legal dispute that would directly affect the conditions of the planning application approval
• Used disproportionate legal pressure around a private boundary
• Overreached its authority; and
• Contradicted itself.
8. I understand the Council owns land which is leased on a long term basis to a third party. The third-party leaseholder (applicant) applied to the Council as local Planning Authority (LPA) to develop the site.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaint, the planning application information available on the Council’s website and all information provided by Mr X and have concluded the following:
• There is an ongoing legal dispute between the complainants and the Council as landowner. This is not something the Ombudsman can involve herself in.
• The legal dispute about land and access is not a material planning consideration for the LPA to consider.
• Ownership certificates are served by the applicant or their agent on all those with an interest in the land. It is not for the Council to establish all relevant landowners. The applicant must then confirm to the Council as Local Planning Authority (LPA) that all notices have been correctly served. The Council confirmed it paused the planning application process when it became aware that Mr X and others had not received notices of the application. The process was restarted after the relevant notices were served.
• The Planning Committee were aware the application was deferred from an earlier planning meeting because incorrect ownership notices had been served.
• The Planning Committee considered an application which includes access and existing parking spaces, part of which is on land owned by Mr X and others.
• Planning permission does not entitle the applicant to develop land they do not own without the owner’s consent. Land ownership and boundary disputes are not material planning considerations. These are civil matters to be resolved between Mr X and the other complainants and the landowner (in this case the Council).
10. Having reviewed the information provided I have not seen enough evidence of:
• Misconduct by officers; and
• Overreaching of the Council’s authority.

11. Mr X is also seeking more than £26,000 for legal fees and compensation for emotional distress. The Ombudsman cannot establish liability for financial loss. This is a matter for the courts. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with a planning application; and
• We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman