Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council is taking too long to deal with his planning application. He also complains about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence and about its handling of his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (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 Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. 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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to respond to his correspondence and about its handling of his complaint but these issues did not cause him significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.
8. The injustice Mr X claims stems from the Council’s delay in dealing with his planning application and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to address the issue in this case.
9. Mr X also refers to a planning application by a third party for which he is acting as agent. Any delay in dealing with this application primarily affects the applicant rather than Mr X and as with Mr X’s application we consider it would have been reasonable for them to use their right of appeal, had they wished to challenge this delay.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is the result of delay by the Council in dealing with his planning application and if Mr X was unhappy with this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman