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. We will also not investigate the complainant’s concerns about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and the complainant has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and the pre-application advice he received. Mr X says there were delays and the Council failed to follow the proper processes. Mr X says he has been caused considerable stress and 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.

5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. He also could have appealed to the Inspector after eight weeks if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to determine his application.
9. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with his application. But these matters are related to the planning decision which could have been appealed and I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues complained about.
10. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with the pre-application advice request he made after his application was refused. Mr X says there were delays and the advice he received lacked detail.
11. The Council’s pre-application advice was sent slightly later than the date the Council said it would respond by in its email correspondence with Mr X. The Council has apologised and said it did still reply within the timescale required. However, I cannot say Mr X has suffered any significant injustice in this regard as the Council did respond to his advice request. I understand Mr X was unhappy with the advice he received and said it lacked detail. But pre-application advice is informal, and councils cannot be expected to fully assess a proposal at the pre-application stage. I am satisfied the advice the Council gave Mr X clearly explained why it considered the proposal unacceptable.
12. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. We are unlikely to find fault in relation to Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s pre-application advice and he has not suffered significant injustice because of any delays in providing the advice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman