Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Teignbridge District Council (17 002 692)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 05 Jun 2017

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the poor service he received when making a planning application in 2016. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because he has appealed to a Planning Inspector.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the poor service he received when making planning applications in 2016.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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

  1. I have considered the complainant's comments and the Council's comments and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X made a planning application in August to remove a hanging slate tile and replace with composite cladding including new composite cladding to additional areas. The Council refused the planning application in October 2016.
  2. Mr X appealed against this decision and the Planning Inspector upheld his appeal in March 2017.
  3. Mr X says that during this time the Council has been unhelpful in failing to provide information he has requested and delaying the determination of the planning application.
  4. The courts have held that the Local Government Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint where the substantial issue is out of jurisdiction. In this case, the planning application itself is out of jurisdiction because he appealed to a Planning Inspector. He could have sought costs against the Council on appeal if he considered the Council has acted unreasonably.
  5. For these reasons, the Local Government Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint about the service he received by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For the reasons given above I do not propose to investigate this complaint. The matter has been appealed to a Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page