Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled a planning application on appeal to the Planning Inspector. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is speculative and Mrs X had the opportunity to put her objections to the Planning Inspector notwithstanding the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled a planning application on appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council refused a planning application in January 2019 for the creation of a gypsy caravan site (for two caravans) near her. The applicant appealed to a Planning Inspector who granted the planning permission in October 2019.
5. Mrs X says that the Council did not deal with the appeal to the Planning Inspector very well and errors were made.
6. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the Planning Inspector or their decisions. Whether or not the Planning Inspector’s decision would have been different had the Council presented their case differently is speculative and the Ombudsman could not reach a conclusion on this. However, the Planning Inspector could consider objections from neighbours (such as Mrs X) in reaching the decision and any arguments or facts Mrs X believed the Council had missed or argued poorly, could be made by her to the Planning Inspector before the decision was reached.
7. For these reasons, the Ombudsman would not hold the Council responsible for the Planning Inspector’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. I will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is speculative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman