Summary: Mr B’s complains about the way the Council considered various applications he has made for development and changes to his home and gardens. The investigation has been discontinued because of the various jurisdictional reasons given in the statement.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council has considered various applications he has made for development and changes to his home and gardens. He considers the Council has been inconsistent and biased against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
3. 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.

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to 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))
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)
7. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr B complains about the Council’s consideration of various planning applications he has made for work to his home. Mr B’s home is a listed detached house in a conservation area.
9. In considering a complaint from someone who has made planning applications I have to consider the requirements I refer to above about their rights of appeal to the planning inspectorate. That is the appropriate body to decide the planning merits of a proposal so we expect people to use that right of appeal. We recognise that an appeal may not address every grievance someone may have about the planning process but it will address the key point which is whether planning permission should be granted. We would only consider any other complaints about the planning process if we considered they were genuinely separable from matters that have, or could be, appealed.

Applications for the house

10. Mr B has made eight applications for works to his house over the last three years. He complains about the Council’s consideration of those applications.
11. One of the applications was subject to another complaint Mr B made to the Ombudsman so I will not consider that as part of this complaint.
12. In two of the other applications Mr B appealed against the Council’s decision to the planning inspectorate. As Mr B has used his right of appeal I have no jurisdiction to consider the Council’s consideration of the applications. Nor can I investigate the conduct of the appeal itself.
13. One of the applications was approved in May 2017. Mr B’s argument here is that the Council was inconsistent in approving this application when it had refused his others. As I explain above it is not for the Ombudsman to consider the planning merits of a proposal. If Mr B wants to test whether planning permission should be granted then he can appeal against any refusal. To consider the point Mr B is making would, inevitably, take me into an assessment of the planning merits of the proposals and that is not my role.
14. Two applications were refused in March and May 2017. Mr B did not appeal against the refusals. I consider it would have been reasonable for him to do so.
15. Mr B made two applications in September 2019. The Council refused both those applications. Mr B has a right of appeal to the planning inspectorate and I consider it would be appropriate for Mr B to use that right. I will not, therefore, consider his complaints about those applications.

The garage

16. Mr B made applications in 2016 and 17 for the erection of a free-standing garage. The first application was refused, the second the Council granted planning permission and the third the Council refused and he appealed. The planning inspectorate granted planning permission. The restrictions and issues I refer to above apply and I cannot see there is anything here I should investigate.

The wall

17. Mr B wants to increase the height of a wall on his property. He considers that a planning permission that was granted in 1994 was implemented and he has permission to proceed under that permission. If Mr B believes that to be the case then he could proceed and defend any enforcement action the Council took against him. But I can see that Mr B would want certainty about the Council’s position before proceeding with works. To do this he could submit an application for a certificate of lawful development. This would test Mr B’s position that he has permission. If the Council refused the application then Mr B can appeal.
18. In June 2018 Mr B submitted a further application. The Council has not determined it. Mr B can appeal against the non-determination and I consider it would be reasonable for him to do that.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have discontinued the investigation of the complaint. .

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman