Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his planning application. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his planning application. Mr X said the Council refused the application but said its decision:
1. was not consistent with other local planning applications;
2. was not transparent because it would not provide him with requested documents; and
3. did not consider his personal circumstances.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council considered his complaint.
3. Mr X said the matters caused distress, uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.
7. 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr X raised numerous concerns about the Council’s consideration of, and subsequent refusal of his planning application.
11. The concerns raised by Mr X are intrinsically linked to the refusal of the application itself. Therefore, these concerns would be better considered by the Planning Inspector.
12. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector. The appeal right is set out in law, and the Planning Inspector has powers to reconsider planning applications and overturn the original decision if necessary.
13. Part of Mr X’s desired outcome is for the Council to reconsider the application. The Ombudsman does not have the power to tell the Council to do this.
14. As we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman