Summary: We cannot investigate part of this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s planning application because she appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. We will not investigate part of this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and its decision to take enforcement action because Ms Y could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her planning application and the Council’s handling of a planning enforcement investigation. She says she has suffered significant financial loss and prolonged hardship.
2. Ms Y also complains about complaint handling, and the Council’s communications with her. She says its staff were aggressive and defamatory.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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).
5. 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)
6. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms Y was granted planning permission for a development; however, it was not built in accordance with the plans. The Council invited Ms Y to make retrospective planning application so that the development could be fully considered. This is not unusual.
10. A planning officer considered the application and decided to refuse Ms Y’s planning application. Ms Y appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate; however, the appeal was dismissed.
11. Because Ms Y appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
12. The Council issued an enforcement notice to Ms Y, instructing her to demolish the development. It had a right to do this. Ms Y could have appealed against the enforcement notice, and it would have been reasonable for her to do this so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
13. Ms Y raised issues about how the Council dealt with the enforcement investigation and her planning application. Because these issues relate to matters that she has appealed or could have appealed, we will not investigate this part of the complaint. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone has appealed, or could have appealed to the Inspector, even if the appeal would not address all the issues raised.
14. Ms Y 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman