Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Authority dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Authority dealt with his planning applications.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
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 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.

6. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X disagreed with the Authority’s decision to refuse two of his planning applications. However, Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Authority’s decision to refuse the applications and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters where someone has already used their appeal right.
9. I understand Mr X’s complaint also relates to how these applications were handled by the Authority. But how the Authority dealt with the applications was related to the planning decisions which were appealed. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has appealed to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal did not address all the issues complained about.
10. Mr X has complained about how the Authority dealt with a third application he made. He says there were long delays, and the Authority unreasonably called the application in to be determined by its in-house planning team. However, Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector for non-determination after eight weeks if he was unhappy with how long it was taking to decide his application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his appeal right. The Authority also explained why it considered it necessary for the application to be called in.
11. Mr X has complained about how his complaint was dealt with and says the planning officer failed to properly communicate with him. However, I do not consider that the injustice suffered because of these issues significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman