Summary: We do not propose investigating Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not deal properly with his planning application. The reasons are in the analysis section below.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to handle properly his planning application to build a dwelling. He says the Council’s preapplication advice was flawed. The planning committee meeting which refused planning permission was rushed and biased. Mr X says the Council caused him time, trouble, expense, and disappointment and he feels wronged. He wants the Council to review the refusal decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and discussed the complaint with him by telephone. I have considered internet street scene photographs of the area and information on the Council’s website about the application. The information held includes the Council’s complaint reply dated 3 November 2020. The Council has supplied the decision letter refusing planning permission.

Back to top

What I found

6. In October 2020, the Council refused planning permission for a dwelling. The decision letter explains the reasons including harm to the character of the area. The decision the right of appeal to the planning inspector.
7. The Council’s complaint reply says its design and conservation team stated that an amended design was an improvement. However, Mr X did not apply for formal preapplication advice and the Council did not say it would support the application. The Council considers the planning committee dealt properly with the application.

Analysis

8. I do not propose investigating Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
1. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Mr X has or had a right of appeal to the planning inspector (see paragraphs 2 and 4 above).
2. I do not propose exercising discretion to investigate because it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal. The planning inspector is the specialist body established to deal with such disputes and has the power to change the Council’s decision if, as Mr X says, the Council’s decision was flawed.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about fault in the planning ‘process’ where the matters are integral to a decision which is outside our jurisdiction. There is no separate injustice which can be distinguished, and it would not be a good use of limited resources to investigate.

Back to top

Draft decision

9. The Ombudsman does not propose investigating Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not deal properly with his planning application. The reasons are in the analysis section.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman