Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Councillor did not tell him they were going to object to his planning application. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law and investigate now. The substantive decision causing Mr X injustice was the Council’s refusal of planning permission, for which he had a right of appeal it would have been reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Councillor did not tell him they were going to object to his planning application. Mr X says he was shocked the Councillor objected because he had previously discussed the application with them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

3. 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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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))
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about decisions to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and the Council’s response. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X discussed his planning application with a Councillor prior to a planning committee hearing. Some months later, the same Councillor objected to the application at the planning committee hearing. Mr X’s planning application was refused. Mr X complains the Councillor breached the Council’s Code of Conduct by not telling him they were going to object to the application.
8. The Council says the Councillor attended the planning committee hearing at short notice on behalf of a colleague. It says the Councillor objected to Mr X’s application on behalf of their colleague and had no further involvement with the application or the hearing.
9. The Council reviewed the complaint and decided the Councillor did not breach its Code of Conduct. Mr X says he became aware in January 2020 of the Council’s decision and is unhappy with the outcome of the review.
10. Mr X says he did not complain to the Council sooner because he was unaware of its internet portal for making complaints. Mr X says he does not consider he took over a year to complain to the Council.
11. Whilst Mr X may have complained to the Council within 12 months of the planning committee meeting, the complaint was not brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the meeting. I consider Mr X could have reasonably made his complaint to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the date the Councillor objected to his planning application.
12. Mr X says he and his wife were shocked when the Councillor objected to the application, but this has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman to disapply the law.
13. Any injustice Mr X suffered from what happened flows from the substantive decision to refuse him planning permission. It would have been reasonable for him to appeal against that decision to the Planning Inspectorate.
14. Mr X also says the Council did not properly address his complaint in its response. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the complaint is late and there is no good reason to disapply the law and investigate now. The substantive decision causing Mr X injustice was the Council’s refusal of planning permission, for which he had a right of appeal it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman