Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice given at a meeting, because we are unlikely to be able to establish whether the Council acted with fault. It is also reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if he wanted to challenge the refusal of his planning application.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council told him at a meeting that it would support his proposed development but when he submitted a planning application it was found to be unacceptable. Mr X says he incurred costs by submitting the application based on the Council’s advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. And the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could have appealed to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about Mr X’s planning applications and associated appeals, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In the absence of any independent evidence, there is no realistic prospect of the Ombudsman being able to establish what was said during the meeting between Mr X, his agent, and council officers. So, with reference to paragraph 2 above, we will not start an investigation as it is unlikely to enable us to ascertain whether the Council acted with fault.
7. The Ombudsman would also not investigate any parts of the complaint about how the Council reached its decision on Mr X’s application. This is because it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to be able to establish whether the Council acted with fault at the meeting, and it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal against the refused planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman