A watchdog has criticised Hackney Council for raising the hopes of a man who bought a plot of land believing it came with planning permission.
The council refused his application nearly two years later.
The man, known only as Mr Z, was in a planning dispute with the council from mid-2024. During that time the local authority repeatedly told his agent that the application was no longer accurate and should be withdrawn and resubmitted. Over the life of the application, the council gave this advice seven times.
The agent did not withdraw it. A complaint was later taken to the local government and social care ombudsman (LGSCO) on Mr Z’s behalf, saying the council’s failure to progress the application had left him paying for assessments and professional services he did not need.
Self-build origins
The application was first submitted in November 2020 by the land’s previous owner, who planned a self-build home on the plot. Self-builders are exempt from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), a charge on new development, provided they own and live in the property for at least three years after it is completed.
The application went before a council planning sub-committee in September 2022, where neighbours raised concerns about the accuracy of the application and its designs. The council never issued a decision. Instead, it urged the owner and their agent to withdraw the application and start again.
No permission
Mr Z bought the land in mid-2024 and kept the same agent, who submitted new plans that July. The agent repeatedly maintained that permission had been granted in 2022 and that Mr Z had bought the land on that basis. In fact, the site had no planning permission. The ombudsman said any concerns about this were a matter for the conveyancing on the purchase.
Once the land changed hands, the application was no longer a self-build for the person who had made it. Even so, the council let the application transfer into Mr Z’s name. It did this after taking legal advice that ignored the self-build element. The ombudsman found the council’s resulting advice was wrong, and the council has accepted the error.
Mixed messages
The council asked for a financial viability assessment, which the agent sent in November 2024. Officers then told the agent the application was wrong and should be withdrawn. In December, they warned the council might withdraw it itself. The agent disagreed, and in February 2025 complained, asking the council to make a decision. The council rejected this as a “service request”, which the ombudsman found it was entitled to do.
Yet the council then told the agent it would allow Mr Z to continue, and charged him more than £3,000 to consider the viability assessment. Mr Z paid. In May 2025, officers told him he would have to pay £50,000 in CIL, and the agent challenged this the following month.
Complaint delays
Mr Z complained about the delays in July 2025. The council replied by email in September, 43 working days after its deadline, saying Mr Z needed to submit a new application. It also said it would not consider the complaint because he could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The ombudsman found that, as he was not the original applicant, he had no such right. The email was not a proper complaint response and did not offer the second-stage escalation that council policy requires.
The case was then taken to the ombudsman.
In March 2026, the council refused the application, on the grounds that it was described as a self-build when the original owner had sold the land.
The ombudsman found the council should have refused the application far earlier: either while the previous owner held the land, or when Mr Z bought it. The delay “raised his expectations”, the ombudsman said, and also found fault with the council’s complaint handling. The council has agreed to apologise to Mr Z for the distress and uncertainty caused, for raising his expectations, and for how it handled his complaint.
However, the watchdog concluded that the council’s errors had not cost Mr Z money. Had the council decided the application promptly, it said, Mr Z would most likely have submitted a new application and paid for a viability assessment anyway, “because the agent repeatedly did not withdraw the application and Mr Z paid to progress the application”.
Find out more on these topics
