Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the conduct of councillors involved in deciding two planning applications. The applicants have appealed the first planning application to the Planning Inspector and it is reasonable for them to appeal the second decision in the same way.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the conduct of councillors involved in deciding two planning applications. They say the councillors did not act impartially, did not declare their connections with objectors to the application and were predetermined when deciding the applications. As a result, they say the applications were refused.

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))
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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Mrs X in her complaint and the Council’s responses to her.
7. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs X. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mrs X complains on behalf of her parents, Mr and Mrs Y, who made two planning applications to the Council.
9. Both planning applications were refused by the Council, one in mid-2019 and the other in mid-2020.
10. Mrs X says some of the councillors involved in the applications did not act impartially, did not declare their connections with objectors to the application and some were predetermined when deciding the first application.
11. As a result, she says the first planning application was refused which caused extra distress and costs for Mr and Mrs Y.
12. Mr and Mrs Y appealed the first planning application to the Planning Inspector, who did not reverse the decision.

Analysis

13. I appreciate that Mrs X says her complaint is about the conduct of the councillors involved in the planning decisions. However, the result of the alleged misconduct was the refusal of the planning applications, which I view as the main injustice.
14. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where someone has already appealed to a government minister. Since Mr and Mrs Y have already appealed the first planning decision to the Planning Inspector, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint.
15. The law also says we should not normally investigate complaints when someone can appeal to a government minister. Mr and Mrs Y can appeal the refusal of the second planning application to the Planning Inspector.
16. We have discretion to set aside this rule where we decide there are good reasons. I have decided not to exercise discretion in this case because:
• The Planning Inspector can consider the planning application independently and can decide if Mrs X’s allegations are relevant;
• Mr and Mrs Y have already appealed one planning decision to the Planning Inspector; and
• There is no good reason why Mr and Mrs Y cannot appeal the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr and Mrs Y have appealed the first planning application to the Planning Inspector and it is reasonable for them to appeal the second decision in the same way.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman