Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consideration of his planning applications since 2019. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because some of the decisions have been subject to appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and are outside our jurisdiction. Mr X had a right to appeal another refused application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of an application which the Council approved but which he says he cannot implement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has handled his planning applications poorly since 2019 and that it has made inconsistent or unlawful decisions. This has led to stress and financial loss. One of the applications which was approved cannot be implemented due to a condition which cannot be met.

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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says the Council unreasonably refused two planning applications in 2019. He appealed the decisions, but the Planning Inspector rejected the appeals. We cannot consider complaints about planning matters which have been subject to the appeal process. The Planning Inspector has the opportunity to consider all the relevant information relating to the case and his decision is binding on the applicant and the local planning authority.
7. In 2020 Mr X had a further application refused by the planning authority. He says the planning officer’s decision was unlawful and he took legal advice with a view to taking a judicial review. He did not progress this and has not exercised his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if a Council has acted unlawfully, only the courts can decide this. Mr X could have pursued a judicial review after seeking Counsel’s opinion, but he did not do so. He could appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate as he did with his previous applications.
8. Mr X says a planning application which was approved in 2020 cannot be implemented because the highway subsequently refused his application for a vehicle crossing. The approval contained a condition requiring off-street parking but he cannot secure a crossing to access any such parking. He says the planning authority should have advised of this before approving the plans.
9. The Council says the highway authority expressed no objection to the plans when consulted and so there was no ground to refuse the application subject to conditions. Mr X could negotiate with the highway authority over access or seek to have the condition removed but there is no fault in the planning procedure here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because some of the decisions have been subject to appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and are outside our jurisdiction. Mr X had a right to appeal another refused application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation of an application which the Council approved but which he says he cannot implement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman