Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has considered its planning duties and responded to the complainant. We do not consider an investigation will lead to a different outcome. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to the complainant and offered him a meeting with a senior officer. We consider this is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint. Finally, we cannot award the damages Mr X is seeking, claim for damages are for the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council:
• failed to consider its duties in connection with alterations to the General Permitted Planning Order
• failed to acknowledge that failure with a lack of openness and lack of explanation
• allowed a letter to be sent to a third party which he says contained a lie about him; and
• delayed in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council wrote to Mr X acknowledging inaccuracies in a letter sent to a third party. It apologised for the error and confirmed the Officer concerned no longer works for the Council.
7. The Council also outlined Mr X’s concerns that planning “class E(g) does not principally refer to visiting public unlike classes E(a) to (f)”. And his query whether the Council commented on the changes to planning classes before they were introduced by the Government in 2020. The Council confirmed it did not consider a specific report on the Government changes to planning classes before 2020. It also confirmed there is general acceptance that sites which are class E can change to another class E use without planning permission.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council accepts there were significant delays in responding to his complaint. It has apologised for this and offered Mr X a meeting with a director to discuss his concerns. I consider this an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.
9. Mr X is seeking damages for the way the Council has dealt with him and for defamation. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Only the courts can determine claims for damages.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We do not consider an investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Council has acknowledged and apologised for the errors in the letter from the planning officer to the third party. It wrote to the third party to correct this.
• It confirms it did not report planning class changes to Planning Committee. The class changes came into effect in 2020 and any comment re class E(g) would have been unlikely to affect legislation.
• It has apologised for the failures to respond to Mr X’s complaints and has offered him a meeting with the director to discuss his concerns. This is an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.
• We cannot award damages which the PA is seeking. If he feels the Council has been negligent and caused him harm personally/reputationally this is a matter for the courts to consider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman