Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the London Legacy Development Corporation’s planning application and enforcement processes relating to residential development at a building in which he owns a flat. The matters complained of and the planning outcome do not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a property in a block of flats. The ground floor was previously used primarily as office space by a company. Part of the space was cycle storage for residents’ use. The owner of the ground floor sought and received planning permissions several years ago from the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), to convert it to residential use. Mr X complains the LLDC:
1. allowed the loss of the cycle storage to his and others’ properties;
2. has not taken enforcement action against the substandard properties the developer has built, or against the loss of the cycle store.
2. Mr X says the matter has resulted in:
• the loss of the residents’ use of the secure cycle storage facility;
• substandard flats being built at the block which are now immune from enforcement;
• local authorities missing out on affordable housing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The LLDC accepts officers made errors in the planning application and change of use processes several years ago. The original planning permission for the block had conditioned the retention of the cycle storage in perpetuity. Officers granted permission for the residential development without sufficient information about the previous planning uses. This allowed the developer to use the space taken up by the cycle store when building the new residences. Mr X says the LLDC then failed to enforce against the breach of the original planning application caused by the removal of the cycle store, and against the properties built which he considers are substandard. The LLDC says it has taken action regarding the original condition breach but has exercised its discretion not to enforce on any other matter.
6. Even though there has been fault by the LLDC, we will not investigate. The planning outcome from both the planning application and enforcement processes does not result in such significant fault to Mr X to warrant us investigating. The injustice to Mr X as the owner of a property in the building is the loss of the cycle storage. LLDC has indicated it is taking action to secure a replacement for the store and the developer has submitted a planning application to install an alternative. Mr X does not say either he or any tenants he may have in the property have been inconvenienced or affected by the loss of the cycle storage. Even if the facility is not ultimately replaced, the impact on his property is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation.
7. We note Mr X considers the new properties are substandard and raises this on behalf of their residents. He also says the way the LLDC dealt with the planning matters has led to other local authorities missing out on access to affordable homes and CIL funds. Mr X has no standing to complain on behalf of the new properties’ residents or any local authorities. Any injustice to those third parties stemming from this matter is not Mr X’s personal injustice for us to take into account.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matters complained of and the planning outcome reached do not cause Mr X sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman