Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions not to grant his planning permissions. Mr X had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s refusal decisions, to pursue the permission he wants. It was not unreasonable for Mr X to use those appeal rights. We cannot investigate one refused application Mr X submitted in 2018. Mr X appealed that decision to the Planning Inspector, which takes it outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X has submitted several planning applications to the Council, to develop a piece of land in a village.
2. Mr X complains the Council has refused planning permission for his applications. He says the Council’s planning officers appear to support his applications, but then the planning committee refuses them. Mr X believes his applications are being blocked by a local councillor who lives near the land Mr X wants to develop.
3. Mr X says the planning decisions have led to him having to leave the village where he grew up and not being able to build on his land. He wants an investigation into the reasons for the Council’s refusals of his applications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Planning Inspector (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.

5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
6. 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))

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. On the evidence I have seen, we cannot or should not investigate Mr X’s complaint.
9. In respect of Mr X’s refused planning applications, he had appeal rights to the PINS to seek to overturn the Council’s decisions. The PINS appeal provides the appropriate formal route for planning applicants such as Mr X to challenge the decisions of local planning authorities.
10. Online planning documents show Mr X used his appeal rights for an application he made in 2018, which was then refused by the PINS in mid-2019. This application is outside our jurisdiction because Mr X used his PINS appeal rights. We have no discretion to exercise to investigate a matter which has gone before the PINS, so we cannot do so.
11. Mr X’s use of the PINS appeal rights for the 2018 application also shows he has been aware of those rights, and was able to use them because he did so in response to that Council planning decision. So I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his PINS appeal rights in response to his other applications refused by the Council. The PINS would have looked at his applications independently from the Council’s process, to consider the application afresh.
12. I understand Mr X has an ongoing planning application with the Council, which could be determined soon. We cannot intervene in that planning process. Mr X will again have PINS appeal rights to use if the Council does not grant the permission he seeks. There would be no grounds for us to investigate this matter because Mr X will again have formal planning applicant appeal rights it would be reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Final decision

13. My decision is:
• we cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal of his 2018 application because he appealed that decision to the PINS;
• we will not investigate any other Council planning decisions Mr X did not appeal to the PINS, because he had those PINS appeal rights which it was reasonable for him to use to pursue the permission he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman