Summary: We will not investigate the complainant’s concerns about how he has been treated by the Council’s planning department. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of how the Council dealt with allegations about works to protected trees.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how he has been treated by the Council’s planning department. He says the Council’s unfair and biased treatment has led to it refusing his planning applications and unreasonably taking enforcement action against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has made many planning applications to the Council since the 1970s. He says the Council has unfairly refused planning permission and unreasonably taken enforcement action against him.
8. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about the enforcement action the Council has taken against him for breaches of planning control or its decisions to refuse planning permission. This is because Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspector about the Council’s decisions at the time and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters where someone has already used their appeal right.
9. Mr X says his complaint is not about the planning decisions. Instead, his concerns relate to how the matters were handled by the Council. But how the Council dealt with the applications is related to the decisions which have been appealed. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has appealed to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal did not address all the issues complained about.
10. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s actions in relation to reports about unauthorised works to protected trees. In 2018, an officer from the Council visited Mr X in relation to the trees. Mr X says there was a long delay before the Council told him the outcome of its investigation and refused to meet with him. He also complains the tree officer was rude and says this is a further example of the Council treating him unfairly.
11. However, it is unlikely I could say Mr X has been caused any significant injustice in this regard. The Council has already apologised for the delays, and it ultimately decided not to take any formal action against Mr X in relation to the trees.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X has not been caused significant injustice because of how the Council dealt with allegations about works to protected trees.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman