Summary: Mr X complained about the Council including his land in a Site Allocations Plan which he says has restricted his right to develop his land in future. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council including land which he owns in its Site Allocations Plan (SAP) for the area. He says that a neighbouring developer has applied for permission to develop his land which will use the entire allocation of housing for the Site. This means he will be unable to develop his land for housing in the future. He wants the Council to remove his land from the SAP area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he found out that land he owned was to be included in the Council’s SAP development plan in 2012. He says he contacted the Council and understood that his land would be removed. The Council carried out public consultation over six years and says all proposals for the site were publicised. The plans were scrutinised by the Planning Inspectorate which approved them in June 2019. Anyone who wished to challenge the SAP approval had an opportunity to do so in the courts at the time.
5. Mr X says that a developer has submitted a planning application for 38 houses which exceeds the number indicated as acceptable in the SAP. He says that if this is approved it will effectively remove his right to develop his own land as no further housing will be permitted.
6. The Council advised him that no-one has a right to develop their land. They may apply for planning approval to develop but this may be refused by the local planning authority.
7. The SAP designates land for a five-year supply of housing to prevent piecemeal development over an area. Mr X was aware of the proposals and although he may have objected this did not prevent the land being included. Other adjoining landowners were in favour of the plan.
8. The plan does not indicate which landowners may develop the site for housing. Anyone can submit plans to the planning authority and it has a duty to determine them. Mr X is as entitled as any other landowner to submit plans to develop his land. Mr X has objected to the submitted plans, but these will be determined according to normal material planning considerations. We cannot comment on planning applications which have not been decided. Mr X did not have a legal right to develop his land extinguished as he has suggested in his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman