Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant’s planning application or how it dealt with the complainant’s neighbour’s applications. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her planning application. She is also unhappy with the Council’s decisions to approve her neighbour’s applications. Mrs X says the Council’s planning decisions are inconsistent. She says she has incurred costs because of the Council’s actions and her neighbour’s development will have an unacceptable impact on her amenity and the surrounding area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.

5. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X says she has incurred costs because of the Council’s decision to refuse her application. However, Mrs X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if she was unhappy with the Council’s planning decision. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have used her right of appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone could have appealed to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues complained about.
8. Mrs X has also complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s planning applications. Mrs X’s neighbour applied for planning permission around the same time as Mrs X and the application was refused. However, permission was granted for the development following an appeal to the Planning Inspector.
9. Since the appeal, Mrs X’s neighbour has made further applications. Mrs X says these applications go far beyond the development granted on appeal and the Council’s decisions to grant permission contradict the reasons for refusing the original applications. Mrs X says the developments approved by the Council will have an unacceptable impact on the area and her amenity.
10. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the applications before granting permission. It did not receive any objections to the household prior approval application and therefore prior approval was not required. Mrs X’s neighbour also applied for Certificates of Lawful Development. However, these applications are not determined on planning merits and instead the Council needed to consider if the proposals fell within permitted development rights. I am satisfied the case officer’s reports for the applications considered if the proposed works were permitted development.
11. The Council also assessed the acceptability of the full applications made by Mrs X’s neighbour before granting planning permission. The case officer considered the impact on the area and neighbouring properties. The Planning Inspector’s decision would also have been a material consideration and relevant to the Council’s assessments of these later applications.
12. I understand Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s planning decisions. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the proposals were acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question these decisions unless they were tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the decision to refuse her application. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman