Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications and associated complaint. It is reasonable to expect him to have used his statutory rights of appeal to a government minister and tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his planning and lawful development certificate applications, and his subsequent complaint. In particular, he says:
• The Council failed to follow the planning application process published on its website.
• The Council failed to engage with the him prior to making its decision.
• There was political bias in the process.
• The process was not completed within the legal time limit.
• There is evidence of cover-ups.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister, and 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

5. Similarly, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about how a Council has responded to a freedom of information request, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
7. Finally, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about Mr X’s applications, on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if he disagreed with the Council’s reasons for refusing his applications, or if he was unhappy with the time taken to determine them. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not address all the issues complained about.
10. I appreciate might Mr X might argue that his concerns about how the Council dealt with his planning applications and subsequent complaint, are separable to the decision on his applications. But the Council’s handling of the applications and complaint are inextricably related to the planning decisions which could have been appealed. And although these issues may not be considered as part of an appeal to the Planning Inspector, we will not investigate such issues if the substantive matter at the heart of the complaint (i.e. the refused applications), is outside our jurisdiction.
11. And with reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, if Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response to his freedom of information requests, I see no good reasons why he should not be expected to pursue the matter with the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to use his statutory rights of appeal to a government minister and tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman