Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application, because the Council’s decision on planning applications come with a right of appeal, and it would be reasonable for Miss X to have used this. Nor will we investigate her complaint about the conduct of a Council officer because we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation, and we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council was unreasonable in its approach to her initial planning application, and she then withdrew her application as a consequence. She also said the planning officer involved with her application treated her differently because of her gender.
2. Miss X now wants the Council to provide her with a different planning officer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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.
5. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, and
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained because she said a planning officer gave her unreasonable advice on a planning application. Miss X said the advice meant she would not be able to afford to implement the requirements and she withdrew her application. Miss X said she believed the advice was inappropriately considered and she was treated differently because of her gender.
9. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint and did not uphold it. It said it looked at the advice the officer had given and said these were valid considerations. It also said it investigated her complaint about how the officer had dealt with her and found no evidence to substantiate her complaint.
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about planning advice. The Council’s decision here comes with a right of appeal to the planning inspector, and it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to have submitted her application and to have used her right of appeal.
11. Nor will we investigate Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of a planning officer, we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. In any case we could not tell the Council to provide her with another planning officer so we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because planning decisions come with a right of appeal and there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome we can achieve in investigating the remaining aspects of Miss X’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman