Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because his injustice lies in the decision to refuse the application and it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his planning application. He is unhappy he could not put his case to its planning committee and says the Council did not properly and independently respond to his complaints.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council told Mr X what documents he needed to provide as part of his planning application but Mr X did not provide them. He considers the Council should have allowed the provision of the documents by condition as part of the grant of planning permission but the Council does not share his view.
7. The injustice Mr X claims stems from the Council’s decision to refuse his application and if he wished to dispute it, including on the grounds the Council should have granted permission subject to conditions, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. If the Inspector agreed that the information was not required at the application stage they could have granted planning permission and required Mr X to submit the information at a later date. It is not for us to say the Council should have taken a different approach to the issue and we cannot overturn the Council’s decision as the Planning Inspectorate can.
8. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s claimed injustice stems from the decision to refuse his application and it would have been reasonable for him to appeal against this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman