Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council told him to apply for planning permission but then declined to determine his application. He says the Council then failed to respond to his agent’s correspondence.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has tried to gain permission from the Council to develop his land over several years and part of the land is subject to an active enforcement notice which Mr X has not yet complied with.
5. Mr X has explored his options and the Council confirmed to him in late 2023 that he could submit a new application for planning permission as long as it complied with several criteria. One of the criteria was that “justification [for the development] has progressed”.
6. Mr X submitted a new application shortly afterwards but the Council declined to determine it. It felt the application overlapped with the development subject to the enforcement notice mentioned at Paragraph 4 and said the change in circumstances had “not occurred to any significant extent”.
7. Mr X’s agent queried this with the Council but it stood by the decision. They contacted the Council again but it did not respond.
8. We are 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.
9. The Council has explained the reasons it declined to determine the application and it is not for us to question it. If Mr X disagrees with the decision he may wish to seek legal advice about the possibility of a Judicial Review at the High Court.
10. I appreciate Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s failure to respond to his agent but we will not investigate this issue separately. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.
11. It is not the Council’s responsibility to suggest ways for Mr X to get around its previous decisions and those of the Planning Inspectorate in relation to his appeals. The Council’s role is to decide whether an application is valid and acceptable and it has done this. It has told Mr X it will consider new applications subject to the criteria referenced above and if Mr X wishes to submit alternative proposals which meet these criteria the Council will consider them. But it is not required to suggest such alternatives itself.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman