Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, it is reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, is unhappy with the way the Council has handled his planning application to build a boundary wall to the front of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 we would find fault, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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))
4. The Planning Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible government minister and 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 considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied to the Council to build a boundary wall to the front of his property. The application was for a wall finished with bricks. The Council approved the application and included a condition “the proposed boundary wall shall be finished with Olde Bayswater Blend Brick Slips.”
7. Mr X is unhappy because he wants the wall to be rendered. The Council has explained to Mr X it approved the application he submitted. It has explained he can either submit a revised application without charge, or appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
8. Based on the information available there is no evidence of fault by the Council. It considered the application Mr X submitted and decided to approve it. If Mr X wants to build a rendered wall, the Council has explained the options available.
9. Also, as explained in paragraph 3, we will not normally investigate when a person can appeal to a government minister. If Mr X is unhappy with the condition requiring the wall to be finished in a particular material, he can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the responsible government minister. There is no reason Mr X should not use his appeal rights and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and Mr X can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman