Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application. This is because Mrs X has appealed against the decision to refuse planning permission and the concerns she raises about the pre-application process did not cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application. She says the Council failed to properly advise about her proposal at the pre-application stage and while it was dealing with the application. She also complains about statements made by a local councillor, which the Council published on its website, and about its handling of her complaint. She says the issue caused her stress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X has appealed against the Council’s decision on her planning application; we cannot therefore investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of the application or any actions which had a bearing on its decision. This includes its alleged failure to advise her about the proposal as part of the application process and contradictions between statements made by different staff members.
7. While Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice is a separate issue it did not cause Mrs X significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation. This is because the pre-application process cannot provide any definitive view on a proposal and is not binding; Mrs X therefore had to make a formal application for planning permission if she wished to proceed with the development and her appeal shows she did not accept the Council’s decision that it was not acceptable. We cannot therefore say she would not have applied for planning permission had the Council advised further at the pre-application stage, or show her costs would have been significantly lower.
8. The information Mrs X has provided also shows the Council offered Mrs X the opportunity to amend her application to remove part of the development it considered unacceptable, but Mrs X instead decided to appeal. We cannot take account of the cost of her appeal or provide a remedy for this.
9. Mrs X also complains about delay by the Council in determining her application but this point carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and if Mrs X had concerns about the length of time taken by the Council, it would have been reasonable for her to use this.
10. I appreciate Mrs X is concerned about statements made by a councillor about her application but the Council has investigated the statements and decided not to take any further action. This was a decision it was entitled to make and I cannot say the issue caused Mrs X significant injustice. Mrs X says the statements amount to libel but this is a legal issue which we cannot decide. If Mrs X wants to claim for damages she may wish to take legal advice.
11. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because I am not satisfied the issues which fall within our jurisdiction caused Mrs X significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman