Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint. The matters it raises are too old, better addressed by a different body, and/or are matters of professional judgement. There is also no evidence of injustice to the complainant which the Ombudsman could seek to remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr D, says the Council’s planning officers have interfered in planning applications, for which he was the agent, in a way he considers unprofessional and beyond their powers. Mr D seeks an apology, and disciplinary measures to be taken against the Council officers in question.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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. (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:

• 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.

6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I reviewed the complaint correspondence between Mr D and the Council.
8. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr D is a planning agent. He represents and assists people applying for planning permission from the Council.
10. On 20 December 2018, Mr D complained to the Council about its handling of three applications. He raised several issues about its officers’ conduct. These included the time taken to decide applications, being required to submit unnecessary documents as part of the application, officers not speaking to him as the agent, and officers requiring changes to applications which Mr D did not consider stylistically necessary, with the threat of the application being refused.
11. The Council replied on 12 February. It partly upheld his complaint on one point, that an officer had requested the submission of an amended location plan for an application, when this had transpired to be unnecessary. It apologised and said it would give further training to the officer.
12. The Council rejected Mr D’s other complaints. It said it was its officers’ role to suggest amendments to applications, which might make them acceptable, and found no evidence to support his complaints they had been bullying or otherwise unprofessional.
13. The Council noted Mr D was due have a meeting with a senior member of the planning department, and suggested his dissatisfaction could be discussed there.
14. On 13 February, Mr D said he did not wish to have a meeting, as he did not consider he would have an “honest hearing”.
15. On 12 July, Mr D referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

16. Mr D refers to three planning applications, but of these, only one was decided within 12 months of his referral of the complaint to the Ombudsman. As explained, the Ombudsman will not generally accept a complaint about matters older than 12 months, unless there are good reasons for the delay in it being raised with him. I see no reason Mr D could not have referred his complaint about the other applications earlier.
17. On the application which falls within the 12-month limit, Mr D’s complaint covers several points. These include the length of time the Council took to decide the application, failing to inform him of concerns about the application in good time, and requesting a change to the proposed design.
18. However, without dismissing Mr D’s views, these are not matters for the Ombudsman. As stated, the Planning Inspectorate is responsible for considering appeals about delays, or unreasonable decisions by the Council on planning applications. The Inspectorate is an expert body and its decisions are binding on both parties.
19. The Ombudsman is concerned with procedure. He does not make decisions on the merits of planning applications, and cannot intervene in matters of professional judgement. That Mr D disagrees strongly with the opinions of Council officers does not change this.
20. In any event, I note this application was approved. The Council has, quite rightly, pointed out the applicant could have refused to make the changes, and then appealed the consequent refusal of the application to the Inspectorate.
21. It may be the applicant preferred to accept the Council’s position rather than submit an appeal. This was the applicant’s choice. But I cannot find this arose because of procedural fault.
22. And, in either case, the only injustice I can see to Mr D from this is his offence at what he sees as Council interference in designs he supports. I do not consider this to be significant enough to warrant investigation at public expense, even if I were likely to be able to find fault.
23. In addition, the Ombudsman has no powers to recommend disciplinary measures be taken against Council staff.
24. Mr D’s complaint is, fundamentally, a disagreement with the way the planning department is managed. He is entitled to this view, but the Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints about individual decisions, and to remedy any injustice caused by fault in those decisions, which is specific and personal to the complainant. The Ombudsman is not a regulator or inspectorate, and has no say in the way Council departments are run.
25. Mr D’s complaints may be better served by approaching his local Councillor.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman