Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. He says there were delays and the officer dealing with the application was unprofessional and failed to properly communicate with him. Mr X says he has incurred additional costs because of the Council’s actions.

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.

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. The Council granted Mr X planning permission for a development at his property. The permission was not implemented, however Mr X made a second application a few years later for a similar development in a slightly different location. The Council granted planning permission subject to conditions. One of the planning conditions said the development could not be used as habitable accommodation.
8. Mr X complained as the first application did not include this restriction as a condition. He says the condition was added without warning and there was no discussion about his intended use of the building. Mr X also says the Council took too long to determine his application and the case officer gave his agent incorrect advice. Mr X says he has incurred additional costs as he needed to apply to vary the planning condition. The cost of building materials also increased.
9. However, Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector after eight weeks if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to determine his application. He also could have appealed if he disagreed with the conditions placed on the planning permission.
10. Mr X has raised concerns about how the Council dealt with the application. But these issues are related to the matter which could have been appealed. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not address all the issues complained about.
11. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the main issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman