Summary: Mrs X complains a Council officer lied throughout the planning process, including to the planning committee, when it considered her retrospective planning application. She says this led the committee to refuse her application. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is outside our jurisdiction because Mrs X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of her application.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains a Council officer failed to follow the correct procedures and deviated all facts about her planning application. She says this led the planning committee to refuse her planning application.
2. She believes the Ombudsman should consider whether this officer has behaved in the same way when dealing with other applications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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))
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:
• the information provided by Mrs X
• the Council’s responses to her complaint
• the planning information on the Council website
• Mrs X’s comments on the draft version of this decision.

I also discussed the complaint with Mrs X.

7. Mrs X comment on this draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs X put in a retrospective planning application for a garage she built on her property.
9. The Council’s planning committee considered the application. Mrs X confirms her tree specialist attended the committee meeting and spoke in support of her application.
10. She complains the Council’s tree officer lied to the committee about his previous advice and involvement with the development at her home.
11. The published minutes show that following a discussion about the application, the committee decided the refuse the application.
12. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X who agrees the injustice flowing from the alleged lies by the officer, is the refusal of her planning application.
13. Mrs X confirms she has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) against the refusal.
14. Mrs X says the Council has failed to follow the correct process when dealing with her application. And the officer has not spoken or written an honest word on the matter. However, once an appeal to PINS is made, the Ombudsman no longer holds jurisdiction on anything connected to the appealed planning application. This includes the service leading up to the submission of the application and the consideration of the application.
15. The courts have supported this interpretation of Section 26(6)(b) of our enabling legislation, the Local Government Act 1974. In R v Commissioner for Local Administration ex p Colin Field [1999] EWHC Admin 754, the court found the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to investigate where a complainant had exercised an alternative remedy. This is despite some of the claimed injustice remaining unremedied. So, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate any events regarding the refused planning applications because the matters have been appealed to PINS.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I cannot investigate this complaint. It is outside our jurisdiction because Mrs X has appealed to PINS against the Council’s refusal of her planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman