Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her planning application. This is because her claimed injustice is not the result of any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council told her to withdraw her planning application as it would be refused. She says she was not given a satisfactory explanation about this and will have to sell the property as it is not big enough without the extension applied for, for her family to live in.

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X applied for planning permission to extend her property in 2020. She says the Council told her to withdraw her application as the proposal was not acceptable but failed to properly explain its reasons. She withdrew her application and complained to the Council but was not happy with its responses.
5. There is no evidence to show the Council told Mrs X to withdraw her planning application. The planning officer’s email to Mrs X’s agent advised the proposal as it stood was not acceptable and “would be heading for refusal”. However the email set out suggestions as to how Mrs X could modify the design to make it more acceptable and asked the agent to “discuss with [Mrs X] and let me know if they wish tor me to proceed with the decision based on the submitted plan or otherwise if you will be looking to revise the proposal.”
6. It was Mrs X’s choice to withdraw her application; this was not the Council’s decision. If she disagreed with its view she could have asked the Council to make a formal decision and she would then have been able to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. If she accepted changes were required she could have revised the plans and asked the Council to consider her amended proposal. The injustice she claims results from the fact she did not receive planning permission from the Council and this is the result of her decision to withdraw her planning application. The Council has explained why it considered the application unacceptable and it is for Mrs X to decide whether she wishes to address its concerns and resubmit her application.
7. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X’s claimed injustice is not the result of any fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman