London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (24 019 292)

Category : Planning > Planning applications

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 06 Mar 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

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

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. 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)
  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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application. This is because he has appealed to the Planning Inspector about the Council’s decision and the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters where someone has already used their appeal right.
  2. Mr X also could have chosen not to withdraw his first application and appealed to the Inspector if the Council refused planning permission. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal.
  3. Mr X’s complaint also relates to how the applications were handled by the Council. But how the Council dealt with the applications is related to matters which have been, or could have been, appealed. The Ombudsman cannot investigate when someone has appealed to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal will not address all the issues complained about.
  4. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings