Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the way the Council handled her husband’s planning applications. The primary planning matter is now resolved because the Council granted Mr X the permission he sought, after a second application. The Ombudsman does not investigate secondary issues of the Council’s service to Mr and Mrs X. Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of the first application, which would have reduced the Council’s involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the wife of a planning applicant, Mr X. Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s planning applications to build a new replacement house.
2. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. made inconsistent and contradictory decisions on Mr X’s applications;
2. failed to communicate properly during the process;
3. failed to explain why the application needed to be determined by the planning committee;
4. showed bias against the application in how it was presented to planning committee Members;
5. set unrealistic deadlines during the planning process;
6. made insensitive and derogatory comments in correspondence;
7. did not take into account that Mr X’s family had already suffered flooding to their home;
8. made inconsistent decisions when compared with other planning applications.
3. Mrs X says the Council:
• increased the family’s stress and distress during the planning process;
• delayed her family’s return to their property, increasing their temporary accommodation costs;
• did not provide the appropriate quality of service paid for;
• caused financial loss by requiring Mr X to obtain amended architects’ drawings at short notice;
• caused further financial loss for Mr X as he is self-employed and had to take time off work.
4. Mrs X wants the Council to be held to account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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))
6. 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.

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

9. The primary issue at the core of Mrs X’s complaint is Mr X’s planning applications. Mr X’s first application was refused permission by the planning committee. That decision gave Mr X a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (PI). The Ombudsman would expect any person dissatisfied with a planning decision to appeal to the PI. The PI is an expert and their decisions are binding on the Council.
10. Mr X did not appeal and went back to the Council to discuss how to amend the development to overcome the reasons for the refusal. Mr X re‑submitted the amended application. All previous objections to the development were withdrawn and the planning committee granted Mr X his planning permission.
11. I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his PI appeal right to challenge the Council’s refusal. Mr X has also now received his permission, so the primary planning issue is resolved. There is nothing further an Ombudsman investigation would achieve here.
12. Mrs X’s complaints are secondary issues about the way the Council delivered its planning service. She is unhappy with the conduct of officers during the planning process, and how the Council dealt with her concerns. The Ombudsman would not investigate such issues if he is not going to investigate the substantive issue at the core of the complaint. This applies here, so investigation by the Ombudsman is not appropriate.
13. In reaching this view, I take into account that Mr X’s PI appeal rights gave him the option not to continue to deal directly with the Council. If Mr X disagreed with the initial refusal, and wanted to take the matter out of the hands of the Council, he could have appealed to the PI.
14. I recognise Mrs X’s family’s personal situation, leading up to and influencing their planning applications, had been distressing. But the personal history of an applicant is not a material planning matter, so the Council could not take it into account or give it weight when making its planning decisions.

Back to top

FInal decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• Mr X had the right of appeal to the PI against the Council’s refusal of the first planning application which it was reasonable for him to have used; and
• in any event, the primary planning issue is now resolved by the Council granting Mr X’s permission, so there is no further planning outcome for the Ombudsman to achieve; and
• the Ombudsman will not investigate secondary issues surrounding the core planning process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman