Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because the complaint is late. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with his planning application. He has also raised concerns about the Council’s complaint handling.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has complained about how the Council has handled his planning application and says there were significant delays before the application was determined.
8. However, I consider Mr X’s complaint about these matters late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. It has been more than a year since the application was determined by the Council. Mr X knew about the issues he has raised about how the Council handled the application at the time, and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate these issues now as Mr X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner.
9. Furthermore, Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector for non-determination if he was unhappy with how long it was taking the Council to decide his application. The issues Mr X has raised about the handling of the application are also related to matters 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 or could not address all the issues complained about.
10. Mr X has 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 the complaint is late. Mr X also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman