Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to discharge a planning condition. This is because it would be reasonable for him to appeal against the decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his application to discharge a planning condition. He says the condition was badly drafted and the Council has not given proper reasons for refusing his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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. If Mr X felt the conditions attached to the Council’s grant of planning permission were badly drafted he could have appealed against them to the Planning Inspectorate. He could also have applied to vary them and appealed against any refusal by the Council to agree to his request. It is not our role to determine whether the conditions met the relevant tests and we have no power to change them.
7. The injustice Mr X claims stems from the Council’s decision to refuse his application to discharge one of the conditions and it is not for us to say the decision was wrong. The Council is entitled to rely on the professional advice it received about the proposal and if Mr X believes the decision was wrong it would be reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman