Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect him to use, or have used, his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and any residual injustice is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement in the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the actions of the Council’s planning department, particularly in relation to one of his most recent planning applications. In summary, Mr X says:
1. The Council failed to determine his application within the 8-week target time limit.
2. The officer’s report manifests the Council’s determination to refuse his application, as ‘pay‑back’ against him for making previous complaints about the Council.
3. The statement in the decision notice, that the Council worked with him in a proactive and positive manner, is a lie, and the notice also fails to specify how the Council engaged in such a manner.
4. The Council wrongly asserted that he had agreed to an extension of time for the determination of his application.
5. The Council falsified the 8-week target dates entered in its planning database in relation to three of his applications.
2. Mr X says his complaint is not about the merits of the Council’s decision to refuse his application. Rather, he says it is about the integrity of the decision-making process, and the honesty and impartiality of those involved in it. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him stress, anxiety, frustration, and increased development costs.

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. The Ombudsman can 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 an investigation if we decide, for example:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to have done, or do, so. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X.
8. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about Mr X’s planning applications on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons.

Points a) and b) of paragraph 1 above

10. It was open to Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspector against non-determination when his application remained undetermined by the 8-week target date. I consider it reasonable to expect him to have used the remedy expressly put in place by Parliament to address such situations.
11. Similarly, if Mr X disagrees with the justification given in the delegated report for refusing his application, or thinks it is unlawful, then it is open to him appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Again, I consider it reasonable to expect him to use this right of appeal.

Points c) to d) of paragraph 1 above

12. I appreciate Mr X says his complaint is about the Council’s handling of the decision-making process, rather than the decision itself.
13. But the Ombudsman must consider the personal injustice that may have arisen as a direct result of the alleged faults. In my view, the substantive injustice here is that the Council refused Mr X’s application; he is unlikely to have raised his concerns with us if his application had been approved. Mr X can seek a remedy for this substantive injustice by appealing to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision, and I consider it reasonable to expect him to use this appeal right.
14. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. I do not consider that any residual injustice arising from the alleged faults here would be significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing these matters in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to use, or have used, his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and any residual injustice is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman