Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Ms X’s planning application. This is because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application. She says it delayed in dealing with the application and that in 2006 the property the subject of the application had been wrongly curtilage listed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complained to the Council about its delay in determining her planning application and that having discovered it was highly unlikely the property was either listed or curtilage listed, she could have submitted a Prior Approval application rather than a full planning application and received permission sooner.
8. The Council noted that up until recently Ms X had, like the Council, accepted the property was listed and pointed out that had she wanted to she could have submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of her application.
9. As Ms X had this alternative remedy which we would reasonably have expected her to have used, the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
10. Having been alerted to Historic England’s view that it was unlikely the building was curtilage listed, the Council looked again at its status and now agrees with Historic England’s view. There are insufficient grounds to warrant investigation of this matter which Ms X has only more recently pursued.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because Ms X had appeal rights to the Planning Inspector which we would reasonably have expected her to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman