Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on her planning application, and its decision to refuse the permission. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate regarding any Council delay in its decision, an appeal it was reasonable for her to use. Mrs X now has a further right of appeal to the Inspectorate against the Council refusing the permission, which it reasonable for her to use to pursue the matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is a planning applicant. She complains the Council:
1. delayed in deciding her planning application;
2. used planning policies which were no longer in force to refuse permission for the proposed development;
3. is involved in a fraud, along with other councils, which is being investigated.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused her great frustration, has had a significant impact on her mental health and wellbeing, and has placed her under financial strain. She wants the planning matter resolved, and for the Council to dismiss all staff involved and her MP.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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 Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X and Mr X applied for planning permission for a development in 2019. The Council refused the permission in autumn 2021.
7. Mrs X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Council’s delay in deciding her application. She also has a further right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of the application in the autumn of 2021.
8. The documents Mrs X provided show she and her co-applicant were represented by a development advisor during the application process. It would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her appeal to the Inspectorate to seek a decision on her application when it was delayed, with the assistance of their representative. It would also be reasonable for Mrs X to use her Planning Inspectorate appeal against the Council’s refusal decision. The Council’s decision letter gives details of how to appeal against it, within six months of the decision date. That Inspectorate appeal is the appropriate formal route, provided by national government to planning applicants, to pursue the permission she seeks and resolve the planning matter.
9. Mrs X says the Council is involved with an unspecified fraud, which she says is the subject of an ongoing investigation. Fraud is a criminal and legal matter, which would be for the police and ultimately the courts to consider, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:

• she had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the delayed non‑determination of her application, which it was reasonable for her to have used;
• she has a further right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against their decision to refuse the permission, which it is reasonable for her to use to pursue the permission she seeks;
• Mrs X’s fraud allegation is a criminal and legal matter for the police and courts, not for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman