Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s report to the committee regarding her refused planning application. Mrs X had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it was reasonable for her to have used.

The complaint

1. Mrs X submitted a planning application to the Council for a development. She complains the Council produced a planning report to its committee which contained numerous errors.
2. Mrs X says the committee’s refusal decision has further delayed her longstanding attempts to get planning permission for the site and was a miscarriage of the planning process. She wants the Council to:
• accept the factual errors in its planning officer report;
• apologise for acting unreasonably;
• accept there are inconsistencies in their decision-making which have detrimental consequences for planning applicants.

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 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))
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The 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

6. I considered information from Mrs X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s complaint is about the way the Council dealt with the planning process for her application. She alleges the Council made mistakes in the process, including in the officer’s report, and the planning committee Members refused her permission. Her complaints about the Council’s process cannot be separated from the planning outcome, the refusal of her application.
8. Miss X had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against that refusal outcome, to remedy what she describes as a ‘miscarriage’ of the planning process. She could have included in her appeal that the Council’s officer report errors led to the wrong decision by the committee.
9. We will only consider complaints from applicants with Planning Inspectorate appeal rights if we consider it would not have been reasonable for them to have used them. The Council’s planning refusal letter told Mrs X of her appeal rights and she has used them after previous refusals. She was also represented by a planning agent who should have known of the appeal process and the formal route it gave her to challenge and determine the core planning issue. Rather than appealing to the Inspectorate, Mrs X complained to the Council. That she was able to pursue a Council complaint process shows there was no impediment to her appealing during that time instead. It was reasonable for Mrs X to have used her Inspectorate appeal because she was aware of her appeal rights and would have been able to exercise them, so we will not investigate her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it was reasonable for her to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman