Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. Mr X says he suffered financial losses and was caused stress because of the Council’s actions.

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), as amended)
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.

5. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. He also could have appealed to the Inspector if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to determine his application.
8. Mr X has raised concerns about how the Council dealt with the application. But many of the issues raised are related to the planning decision which could have been appealed. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not address all the issues complained about.
9. Mr X says the Council did not properly communicate with him. However, I do not consider the injustice caused as a result, significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any alleged fault with how the Council communicated with him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman