Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if he disagreed with the amendments the Council requested.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled his planning application through poor communication, refusing to compromise, and inconsistent decision-making. Mr X also says a council officer was unprofessional and unfriendly during a site visit.
2. Mr X says this caused significant stress and wasted time, and means he cannot create the space needed for his elderly parents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could have appealed 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).
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.
7. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about Mr X’s planning application, available on the Council’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council requested amendments to his original proposal, and thinks his compromise suggestions were unfairly rejected. But the Ombudsman is 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 whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application to justify starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• if an applicant is using an agent, it is normal practice for the Council to liaise with the agent about the application. It is expected the agent will then relay information to their client/the applicant.
• the case officer responded to the agent’s correspondence within 1-2 days.
• the case officer allowed a porch to be incorporated into the proposal, even though this was not part of the original submission.
• each application must be assessed on its own merits, and decisions must be based on material planning considerations related to the development of the land in the public interest; not the individual circumstances or needs of the applicant.
• the delegated report explains why the original submission was deemed to be unacceptable, and how the amendments requested address this.
• Mr X did not raise any concerns about the requested amendments until after the application had been determined.
• in the absence of any independent witnesses, it is unlikely the Ombudsman could establish whether the case officer acted with fault during the site visit.
11. Furthermore, if Mr X was disagreed with the amendments requested by the Council, then it seems reasonable to expect him to have waited for his application to be refused, and then used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. With reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, we would not investigate Mr X’s complaint for this reason too.
12. Finally, as we are not investigating Mr X’s substantive complaint about the handling of his planning application, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue his associated concerns about the Stage 2 complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint primarily because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the application, and it is reasonable to expect him to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman