Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his prior approval notification. Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate and the law says we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his notification for prior approval application in 2020. He said this led to three years of problems which has caused him stress and financial loss.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
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.

7. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
9. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by a council concerning a matter which is outside our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it.
11. I also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and the statements provided to the court and planning inspectorate.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

13. Mr X submitted a prior approval notification to the Council in July 2020 for the conversion of commercial units to flats. He had previously submitted a notification for adjacent units in March. Mr X said the Council mixed the applications up and incorrectly validated the latter application, stating the existing units were B1a (office) rather than B1c (light industrial).
14. In November 2020, Mr X received a letter from the Council advising him that his proposal did not require prior approval of the Council. A member of the public sought a judicial review of the decision.
15. In 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X. It acknowledged it had made mistakes. It said the buildings could not be converted without planning permission as they were not office buildings (B1). The Council told Mr X he could not proceed with the proposal. It said it would address any attempt to convert the buildings through the planning enforcement process.
16. Mr X applied for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) in 2022. The purpose of the application was to clarify the prior approval decision date of the 2020 application. The Council refused the LDC application. Mr X appealed the decision in May 2022. In July, the Inspector issued a decision that the appeal should succeed and issued a LDC for the proposal.
17. In September 2022, the Council sought a judicial review of the planning inspectorate’s decision with the aim to having the decision quashed. The Council considered the Inspector had misinterpreted the 2020 Regulations. In December 2022, the Court ordered the Inspector’s decision quashed.

My findings

18. Mr X’s complaint stems from how the Council handled his 2020 prior notification application. As he was aware of the issues then, Mr X could have complained to us sooner. For this reason, I would not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint as it relates to matters which occurred more than 12 months ago, and is therefore late.
19. Mr X exercised his rights of appeal when he took the matter to the Planning Inspectorate in May 2022. The law says we cannot investigate matters if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister.
20. The subject of the complaint has also been considered by the courts after the Council sought a judicial review. I would not investigate Mr X’s complaint as the issues have been raised within a court of law.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have ended my investigation. Mr X used his rights of appeal when he took the matter to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman