Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning enforcement and application processes relating to developments on his property and how it dealt with his complaint. There is no different outcome achievable on the planning enforcement issues to warrant us investigating. The planning application process is outside jurisdiction because Mr X used his Planning Inspectorate appeal, so we cannot investigate it. We cannot or would not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. We also do not investigate complaints about councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in a rural area, within a designated protected ‘IW National Landscape’ (IWNL), formerly known as an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’. Mr X built two developments on his land. The Council advised him it did not consider the developments acceptable in planning terms and invited him to seek retrospective planning permission. Mr X did this and the Council refused it. Mr X appealed that refusal to the Planning Inspectorate, which allowed his appeal.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly investigate the planning enforcement matter relating to the developments on his land;
2. made decisions based on inaccurate information and acted in a biased and unprofessional manner;
3. failed to undertake a thorough site visit during his retrospective planning application;
4. gave the Planning Inspectorate false and inaccurate information during his appeal;
5. failed to signpost him to the costs recovery procedure during his appeal;
6. failed to reply to his questions and properly investigate his complaint.
3. Mr X says the matter has caused him and his wife mental distress and anguish. He says he has incurred considerable financial costs of almost £2,000, including the costs of his Planning Inspectorate appeal. Mr X wants the Council to pay him the appeal fees he incurred and apologise for the mental stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The 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.

7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X’s complaint involves two main functions of the Council: its planning enforcement and planning application processes.
10. The Council contacted Mr X about the unauthorised developments on his land in early 2024. He considers officers failed to properly investigate the matter, made their decisions based on inaccurate information and were biased and unprofessional. The Council accepts some of the contents of the communication between officers and interested consultees was unacceptable. It has taken internal personnel actions where it considers this appropriate and apologised to Mr X. Investigation by us of this issue would not result in a different outcome, so we will not do so.
11. The key issue here was the Council’s enforcement actions. Officers made initial errors in their assessment of which developments belonged to Mr X and which were unauthorised, but these were resolved before the Council invited him to apply for retrospective planning permission. Officers were entitled to reach their opinion that Mr X’s developments were planning breaches which required authorisation and enforcement involvement. If Mr X considered the Council was wrong in its final view and believed no permission was required, he could have chosen not to make an application. It would then have been for the Council to decide whether to take formal enforcement action, including serving him with an Enforcement Notice, which Mr X could have appealed against to the Planning Inspectorate.
12. Mr X decided to make a retrospective planning application, which he was entitled to do. That decision moved the matter from the Council’s planning enforcement process and into the planning application process. The core planning issues within the enforcement matter have therefore been considered and ultimately decided at appeal. There is no different outcome of the planning enforcement process which investigation would now achieve, so we will not investigate.
13. We cannot investigate any of Mr X’s complaints about the planning application and appeal processes. This is because Mr X used his appeal right to the Inspectorate to challenge the Council’s decision. We cannot by law investigate any aspect of the planning application process where someone has used their appeal to the Inspectorate, so will not do so.
14. We recognise Mr X raises issues about Council officers’ actions during the planning application and appeal processes, including its site visit and the information given to the Planning Inspectorate. Inspectorate appeals may not consider these issues. However, the courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we have no jurisdiction to investigate. The principle in this court judgement, as in paragraph seven above, applies wherever a complainant has used a formal right of appeal other than through court proceedings, including a Planning Inspectorate appeal. This limitation on our jurisdiction applies even if the appeal will not or cannot provide a complete remedy for all issues raised. So we cannot investigate the Council’s involvement in this part of the planning matter because Mr X used his Planning Inspectorate appeal right.
15. Mr X says the Council failed to tell him about the costs claim procedure during his Planning Inspectorate appeal. It is not the duty of the party being appealed against to advise an appellant about the details of the appeal process. Information about appeal costs claims is publicly available online. Mr X says he paid for a planning advisor to assist with his appeal, so might have expected to receive information about the costs process from them. It was also open to the Planning Inspector to make a costs award if they considered it appropriate, without receiving a claim, but did not do so here.
16. Mr X is seeking the payment of his appeal costs as a remedy. But there was a process available to seek to recover those costs, and we cannot order a council to make a payment. The other remedy Mr X wants is an apology, but we would not investigate to get an apology. That we could not or would not achieve the remedies Mr X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.
17. Mr X considers the Council did not properly deal with his complaint or answer all his questions. We do not investigate council’s internal complaint handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is no different outcome investigation would achieve on the planning enforcement issues to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot investigate the planning application process because he used his Planning Inspectorate appeal, which takes the matter outside our jurisdiction; and
• we cannot or would not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks; and
• we do not investigate complaints about councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman