Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 016 969)
Category : Planning > Planning advice
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 12 Feb 2020
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council lied about changes in law, was inconsistent when considering his planning applications and unnecessarily asked for further information. This is because Mr C appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and the Ombudsman has no discretion to investigate.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complains the Council lied about changes in law and unnecessarily asked for a coal mining risk assessment as part of a planning permission application. Mr C says he incurred unnecessary costs as a result. Mr C also complains the Council was inconsistent when considering his planning applications.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered what Mr C said in his complaint and his comments on the draft decision.
What I found
- Mr C applied for planning permission in April 2019 but was not given planning consent. Mr C resubmitted a revised application in October 2019. The Council asked Mr C to provide plans which included a scale rule and a coal mining risk assessment with the resubmitted application.
- Mr C complained the Council was inconsistent when considering his applications because it had not asked for these documents with his first application. Mr C provided the documents, but the Council refused the resubmitted application.
- The Council says the proposed development is in a coal mining high risk area and it therefore needed the coal mining risk assessment. The Council says it should have asked for the assessment with the first application. The Council says there were no relevant changes in law, but on 1 October 2019 it introduced a validation checklist to make sure applicants provide relevant information with each planning application.
- Mr C appealed to the Planning Inspectorate regarding both applications in January 2020.
- Mr C says the Planning Inspectorate will not consider the appeal of his first application because it was incorrectly validated by the Council. Although he has appealed, Mr C says his complaint should be investigated because the Council admitted making a mistake and told him it would not approve any planning applications he made.
- Even if the Planning Inspectorate do not consider Mr C’s appeal of the first application, it remains that Mr C has appealed on both applications. The restrictions described in paragraph 4 therefore apply. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints where a complainant exercised an alternative remedy, despite some of the injustice suffered remaining unremedied.
R v Commissioner for Local Administration ex p Colin Field [1999] EWHC Admin 754.
Final decision
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman