Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Authority has failed since 2015 to properly deal with firm A’s three planning applications for a plot of land. The firm had or has used its rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for its last two applications from 2016 and 2017. The Ombudsman will not investigate because the firm used its Planning Inspectorate appeal right for the 2017 application, and it was reasonable for the firm to have used that appeal right in response to the 2016 decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a Director of firm A. The firm has applied three times since 2015 for planning permission to develop the same plot of land.
2. Mr X complains the Authority dealt with the applications improperly, including:

• delaying in dealing with the applications;
• misleading elected Members making decisions on the applications;
• giving the firm contradictory and misleading information; and
• not answering all the questions he raised in his complaint.

3. Mr X considers the Authority has failed to give him the service he paid for. He says the flawed planning process has caused harm, emotional and financial hardship, financial loss and distress. Mr X wants the Authority to:
• answer all his questions;
• acknowledge its failings;
• explain to him how Members can make decisions using flawed information;
• give financial compensation; and
• make its planning processes more consistent and professional.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
5. The PI 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. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• read relevant planning documents online;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

8. Firm A made three applications for residential developments on a plot of land. The firm withdrew the 2015 application. It submitted an amended application in 2016, which the Authority refused. The firm then resubmitted the 2016 application in 2017. The Authority refused this application and the firm appealed to the PI. The PI dismissed the appeal in early 2019.
9. If Mr X and the firm disagreed with the Authority’s decision on the 2016 application, they had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (PI). Given the firm was able to appeal the 2017 refusal, I consider it would have been reasonable for it to have used its appeal against the 2016 decision. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to exercise discretion to investigate that matter now.
10. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the 2017 planning application because Mr X’s firm used its appeal right to put the matter before the PI. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate where someone has used that appeal right.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• Mr X’s firm has used its right of appeal to the PI for the 2017 application so the Ombudsman cannot investigate;
• the firm had appeal rights to the PI after the Authority’s refusal of the 2016 planning application, which it was not unreasonable for it to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman