Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Guidance on jurisdiction : : Examples : : S26(6)(b) right of appeal to a Minister of State

Guidance for LGO staff

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Search the Guidance for LGO staff sections:

Note If you would like to search other sections of the website please use the search field at the top of the page.

Related Content

Examples: Right of appeal to a Minister of State

Planning appeals (including enforcement appeals) cannot be determined by the Ombudsman and so where the complainant is also the planning applicant, his complaint will usually be out. But advice given incorrectly at pre-planning stage can, in some circumstances, be investigated as a separate issue:

  • A complainant who needed extra living space for his family was unable to afford to move house, so he planned to convert the loft of his house into a dormer extension. He said that he had telephoned the council and been told that he did not need planning permission, so he instructed his builder and the work went ahead. The council investigated complaints made by neighbours of the site and concluded that planning permission was required. A retrospective planning application was refused – IN for pre-planning advice, but the Ombudsman was unable to investigate the way the planning application itself was dealt with, because it was considered reasonable to expect the complainant to appeal.
  • The council had approved a planning application subject to the developer entering into a s106 agreement. The council delayed in drawing up the agreement, causing financial loss to the developer. IN, as there was no point in the developer appealing as the council had already indicated it was minded to approve the plans.
  • A developer negotiated with a council to obtain planning permission for a new development of housing. Officers indicated that they would recommend approval conditional on the developer entering into a s106 agreement to carry out certain improvements to the local transport infrastructure. However, the developer considered this demand unreasonable and negotiations stalled – OUT, as it was considered reasonable to expect him to use his appeal rights.
  • A developer complained of delay in the council dealing with his planning application. It was considered reasonable to expect him to appeal for non-determination – OUT.
  • The complainant had erected an extension to her home without the necessary planning permission, and claimed that the council was using planning enforcement procedures unreasonably harshly – OUT, as a retrospective application and the Enforcement Notice were appealable.

Date Updated: 15/07/09