Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and application for prior approval. He says errors by the Council led to the planning decision being quashed following a judicial review. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his application for prior approval.
2. Mr X says he has incurred significant costs and been caused stress because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
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), as amended)
6. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council made errors which led to a judicial review of the planning decision and subsequently his planning permission being quashed. However, the judicial review was allowed on two grounds. Only one of the grounds related to procedural fault in the recording of the planning committee meeting minutes. We cannot say if the judicial review would have proceeded had it not been for this error. Therefore, we cannot say Mr X suffered significant injustice as a direct result of the fault. It was also Mr X’s choice to seek legal representation to engage with the court proceedings.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application. This is because Mr X used his right to appeal to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters where someone has already used their appeal right.
10. Mr X has raised concerns about how the Council dealt with his application for prior approval. He says the Council incorrectly said his land was not agricultural. However, if Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, he could have appealed to the Planning Inspector. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has appealed, or could have appealed, to the Planning Inspector in relation to the Council’s decisions to refuse his applications. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice because of any fault with the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman