Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. He says he was indirectly advised that planning permission was needed. However, he has since discovered the application was unnecessary. Mr X says the Council should refund the planning fee he paid and compensate him for his time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (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 considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

5. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the changes he proposed to his property did not amount to development under the Town and Country Planning Act and therefore he did not need permission for the work. Mr X says he made the application as his neighbour was told by the Council permission was needed for similar work. Mr X says the Council should have realised his planning application was unnecessary and refunded his fee rather than validate and assess the application.
8. However, it was Mr X’s decision to make the application and the Council will need to process the applications it receives. Mr X also could have applied for pre-application planning advice if he wanted to clarify if permission was required.
9. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has said planning permission was needed for the proposed changes due to previous planning conditions for the site. I understand Mr X disputes this. But if he did not agree he could have decided not to apply for permission and appealed to the Planning Inspector if the Council decided to take enforcement action against him. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X also had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman