Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This is because we cannot question the officer’s judgement on the application and the injustice Mr X claims stems from delay in the application process, which carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his planning application. He says the Council made incorrect judgements about his application, failed to properly assess a crucial aspect of the proposal and failed to officer him an opportunity to respond to the planning officer’s concerns. He also complains that delays by the planning officer in dealing with his application led to additional costs totalling almost £6,000.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The planning application process relies greatly on the judgement of planning officers in determining whether proposals meet a council’s policies and are acceptable.
7. Mr X’s complaint relates to the planning officer’s judgement in his case but this goes to the merits of the planning officer’s decision to recommend his application for refusal and the law does not allow us to question this. In any event, the Council decided to approve Mr X’s application and grant him planning permission and this was the best outcome Mr X could have hoped for.
8. Mr X says the planning officer delayed the application process beyond the statutory eight-week period causing him significant additional costs but this is not an issue we can investigate. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal in respect of any delay and if he was concerned the officer had taken too long it would have been reasonable for him to use it. Mr X could also have applied to the Planning Inspectorate for any costs in pursuing his appeal.
9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems primarily from the planning officer’s judgement on his application and their alleged delay in dealing with his application. We cannot question the officer’s judgement and if Mr X was concerned about the delay it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman