Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered the complainant’s planning application. We consider it reasonable to expect the complainant to have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate if she believes the decision to refuse her planning application is wrong.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council’s tree officer was prejudiced, biased and racist. She says his report on her planning application was wrong and he trespassed on her property.
2. Ms X wants:
• a new tree report to be produced by a different officer
• her planning application to be reconsidered with the new report taken into consideration; and
• new procedures put in place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
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), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X put in a planning application. Her complaint centres around the tree officer site visits. She complains the officer made inappropriate comments during the visit. She also says his report is incorrect as the officer failed to consider the whole site.
9. The Council has apologised for the officer’s inappropriate remarks and confirmed they have been reminded of “the importance of restricting any comments or opinions to matters within the scope of his purpose during site visits.” It also says it will remind Planning Services staff of appropriate “on-site conduct and communication, in accordance with the Council’s behaviours.”
10. I consider the apology and action taken to be a suitable remedy to the inappropriate remarks made by the officer. As there are no recordings of the site visit, there is little that our investigation into this point would achieve.
11. The Council refused Ms X’s planning application. Ms X wants the Council to reconsider her planning application with a new report from a different tree officer. She was advised of her right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal at the time and again when the Council responded to her complaint.
12. Ms X wants the planning application to be “redone” with a new tree officer report. This is not something the Ombudsman can require the Council to do. If she believes the tree officer report was incorrect and the subsequent planning officer report is also incorrect then she has the right to appeal against the refusal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we consider the Council’s apology for the tree officer’s remarks and its reminder to staff about behaviour on site is an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint.
14. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect her to have used of right of appeal to the Planning Inspection against the Council’s refusal of her planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman