Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining his planning application. Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the matter. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has used that appeal right. The use of that appeal takes the matter outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a planning applicant. He works for a firm which has sought planning permission from the Council for a change of land use, and the construction of an industrial development.
2. Mr X complains the Council has delayed in determining the planning application for several years, has failed to engage with him during the process, and provided inaccurate updates.
3. Mr X says the Council’s delay in determining his application has led to delays to the firm’s plans, and had an impact on the current business from the site. He says the firm has had thousands of pounds of expense dealing with the application and the Council’s requests for further information. Mr X wants the firm’s application to be transferred to a different planning officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The PINS 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

7. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X is the named applicant for the planning application, lodged with the Council several years ago. The Council did not decide the application within the normal timescale. Mr X appealed to the PINS in 2019 on the grounds of its non‑determination of his application.
9. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter where the complainant has already used their right of appeal to the PINS. As soon as a PINS appeal is lodged, the Ombudsman no longer retains jurisdiction in relation to anything in connection with or having a bearing on the consideration of the appealed planning application.
10. This interpretation of Section 26(6)(b) of our enabling legislation, the Local Government Act 1974, has been endorsed by the courts. 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, despite some of the injustice suffered remaining unremedied. So the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate earlier events in the planning application because Mr X has appealed the matter to the PINS.
11. I note the outcome Mr X says he wants is for a new planning officer to consider his application. The PINS process is the appropriate formal appeal route for Mr X to follow, and it will give him this outcome. The PINS appeal process will look at the entire matter afresh. A PINS appeal is dealt with as if the applicant had applied to it in the first place.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the PINS, which takes the complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman