Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in determining a planning application. This is because Mr Z had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which he could reasonably have used.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to here as Mr Z, says the Council took an excessive amount of time to determine his planning application. Mr Z says this was because he was discriminated against by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 Z and the Council, as well as information about Mr Z’s application on the Council’s online planning portal.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Z submitted a planning application to the Council in 2020. After changes were made to the application, it was determined in 2021, when permission was granted.
8. The restriction outlined in paragraph 2 applies in this case. Mr Z had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate about the delay in determining his application, which we would reasonably have expected him to use.
9. The Council investigated Mr Z’s claims about the way his applications were processed, finding no evidence of discrimination. The Council confirmed it would be willing to investigate any further evidence Mr Z has about this concern. There is no evidence to suggest fault with the Council’s actions in respect of this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr Z had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which he could reasonably have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman