Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with breaches of planning control and a retrospective planning application. This is because part of the complaint is late, and the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and her retrospective planning application. Ms X says she was incorrectly told the change of use of her land needed planning permission. She also says she was asked to provide unnecessary information to support her application. Ms X says she has incurred costs and suffered 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. 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.

6. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X has raised many concerns about how the Council investigated a possible breach of planning control. She says the Council previously told her she did not need permission to change the use of her land. However, she was later incorrectly told to submit a retrospective planning application.
9. I consider Ms X’s complaint about the pre-application planning advice she received from the Council late. A complaint is late if it has taken someone more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman. Ms X received advice from the Council in 2019, and she has known about the issues she has raised for more than a year. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate as Ms X could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner if she was unhappy with the planning advice she received.
10. Ms X says she was told she needed to apply for retrospective planning permission but later found out this was not necessary. However, it is not unusual for councils to request a retrospective application to regularise a breach, and the acceptability of the development would not be fully assessed until the application was considered. If Ms X did not agree there had been a breach she could have chosen not to apply for planning permission and instead appealed to the Planning Inspector if the Council subsequently took enforcement action. Ms X also could have appealed to the Inspector for non-determination if she was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to decide her application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to use her right to appeal, and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had the right to appeal.
11. Ms X says the Council asked for unnecessary information to validate her application. However, if she did not agree the information was required, she could have followed the process under Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
12. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with her planning application and the actions of the case officer. The Council has accepted it did not communicate with Ms X or her agent clearly or consistently. It has offered Ms X £500 to reflect the issues. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late. Ms X also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman