Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s planning application or how it dealt with a breach of planning control. This is because she could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and it is reasonable to have expected her to have done this.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of her planning application and how it dealt with a possible planning breach. She says the Council left her with no choice but to submit an application to avoid enforcement action being taken against her.
2. Mrs Y also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

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), 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; and
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council completed an unannounced site visit at Mrs Y’s business address to investigate a potential planning breach. Mrs Y is unhappy with how the breach was investigated, but the Council has a duty to investigate possible breaches of planning control.
9. The enforcement officer who completed the site visit informed Mrs Y that she should complete a retrospective planning application to regularise the breach. It is not unusual for Councils to do this.
10. The Council informed Mrs Y it was her choice whether she submitted an application. It advised her it may take enforcement action against her for the breach if an application was not submitted or if the application was rejected. The Council had a right to do this. Mrs Y says the threat of enforcement action left her with no choice but to submit a planning application.
11. If Mrs Y did not want to make a planning application or considered it unnecessary, she could have chosen not to apply. If the Council then decided to take enforcement action against her, she could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs Y to have used her right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
12. Mrs Y did submit a planning application. She is unhappy with how the application was dealt with and said there was a delay in the Council processing this, exceeding the statutory timeframe. During this time the Council requested to extend this deadline and Mrs Y agreed. She could have disagreed with this and appealed to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs Y to have used her right to appeal if she was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to decide her application.
13. Mrs Y’s application was granted eight months after she submitted it.
14. Mrs Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because she could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and it is reasonable to have expected her to have done this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman