Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of two planning applications. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate about a refusal of an application and delays in deciding them. We will not investigate the Council’s failure to advise Mr X about his applications because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X says he submitted two applications to the Council on behalf of a client. He says he was not given advice by the Council that he had submitted an incorrect application for a certificate of lawful development which resulted in it being refused. He also says both applications were determined outside the statutory 8-week period and the planning staff were unhelpful with his enquiries. This has resulted in a loss of trust by his client.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he submitted a planning application on behalf of a client whom his business was representing. He says the Council did not give sufficient advice about what was required in the application for him to be able to present the correct requirements. As a result, the application was refused because the development exceeded the requirements for permitted development.
7. The Council told Mr X that the onus is on the applicant to ensure that an application is correctly presented for determination. It also pointed out that it offers a planning advice service which is available for a fee and that Mr X or his client could have used this service if they were unsure about the content before it was submitted.
8. Mr X says the application were not determined within the 8-week period in the planning regulations. The Council disagreed with his claim and confirmed to him that both were decided within the required period.
9. We will not investigate complaints about matters which carry a right of appeal to a tribunal or a government minister. Complaints about planning refusal and delay in determination may be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State and is the proper authority to decide planning appeals. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal about any delay of refusal of his applications.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made. The Council dealt with the applications submitted by Mr X correctly and professional advice was available if he had paid for this service.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s determination of two planning applications. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate about a refusal of an application and delays in deciding them. We will not investigate the Council’s failure to advise Mr X about his applications because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman