Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s planning process. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and because Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. It was reasonable to expect him to use his right of appeal if he was unhappy with the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not inform him that a legal agreement was in place when he submitted his planning application for a change of use for land behind his home. The Council refused Mr X planning permission.
2. Mr X says he would not have paid for an additional report in support of his planning application if he had been aware of the agreement and says the Council should reimburse him the cost of the report.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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))
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant. I have also considered information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X applied for planning permission to change the use of the land behind his house. The Council told Mr X a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report was needed before it could consider his application. Mr X obtained the report and submitted it to the Council. The Council refused the application for planning permission.
10. The Council told Mr X there was a section 106 agreement in place on the land, but this did not affect its decision to refuse planning permission. Mr X says that if he had been aware of the section 106 agreement he would not have applied for planning permission.
11. The Council were not required to inform Mr X of the section 106 agreement at the point he submitted his planning application. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we will not investigate this complaint.
12. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with the decision to refuse planning permission. It was reasonable for Mr X to exercise his right. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and because it was reasonable to expect Mr X to exercise his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman