Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s proposals to develop a plot of land he owns. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s pre-application advice on his proposals for developing a plot of land which he owns. He also says it is blocking his ability to develop his land without accepting the need to issue a purchase order.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he has been trying to obtain planning approval to develop land he owns for the past 18 years without success. He has submitted applications which were refused, and he has appealed them to the Planning Inspectorate. In 2021 he obtained property-application advice from the Council at its suggestion. He says the advice was unhelpful because it could not give him any guarantee that his submissions to build a dwelling would be supported.
6. The Council told Mr X that while it does not consider his land to be unsuitable for development, the previous applications for a dwelling have been unsuitable because of the impact on residential property adjacent to it. The Council advised him to submit an application for a scheme which he considers would be viable if he believes the previous grounds for refusal can be surmounted. This is unlikely to be residential or commercial use as these submissions have failed in the past.
7. Mr X says if his land is unsuitable for development the Council should consider a purchase order. The Council says there are uses which his land could be put to and the onus is on him to submit plans which would be more acceptable. It advised him to seek the services of a professional planning consultant.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints. The pre-application advice was given in good faith, but it could not be expected to prejudice the outcome of any application he submitted. We would not expect a local planning authority to pre-determine the outcome of a planning application as this would have to follow the procedure for consultation with the public. The authority would have to take into account any material planning considerations at the time before making a decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s proposals to develop a plot of land he owns. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman