Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on her planning applications. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council refused her first application for planning permission to extend her property and limited the development she could build under her second application. She says this is inconsistent with its decision on her neighbour’s application.

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. 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 Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If Miss X had disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse her first planning application it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. She did not and applied for a second amended scheme instead.
7. The documents for Miss X’s second application suggest she amended the proposal based on feedback from the Council but she thinks this was unfair because she was not allowed to extend her property in the way her neighbour did.
8. But Miss X is ultimately responsible for deciding what she wanted to apply for and did not have to amend the proposal based on feedback from the Council. Had she felt the Council was wrong to ask her to amend her plans she could have declined to alter them and appealed against any refusal by the Council.
9. It is for the Planning Inspectorate, rather than us, to decide if the Council’s decisions on Miss X’s planning applications were correct and I have seen nothing to suggest it would have been unreasonable for Miss X to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman