Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about poor communication and planning advice. This is because part of the complaint has already been considered by the Planning Inspectorate, and there is insufficient evidence of injustice or insufficient evidence of fault to investigate the other parts of the complaint, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about poor communication and planning advice. Mr X also complains that he was asked for unnecessary information and complains about complaint handling. Mr X says this caused delay and significant expense and he wants financial compensation.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about decisions to refuse planning permission.
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), 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 purchased a business and later applied for planning permission to demolish the building and replace it with a new development. Mr X said that the change of use was needed because the business was no longer viable.
11. In early 2024, the Council rejected the application because it said it was overdevelopment in an unsuitable location. It said the planning permission was contrary to its policies on community hubs and clusters, managing housing development in the countryside and greenbelt, and sustainable design.
12. Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspectorate in 2024. The Inspector visited the site and dismissed the appeal in late 2024.
13. Mr X also complains the Council did not inform him of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) made 25 years ago, or of an historic planning application which included road safety measures which weren’t implemented. He says the CPO was made because the road was dangerous and it needed the land to improve the road. He says because the road was not improved, this shows the road is dangerous and supports his position the current business is not viable because it is accessed from a dangerous road. Mr X says because the business is not viable, his planning application should have been approved. The Council say there are insufficient records to explain why the CPO was made 25 years ago.
14. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. A local land search does not guarantee disclosure of historic matters. Given the time that has passed, it is not reasonable to expect the Council to hold detailed records about the reasons for the CPO. We cannot add to the Council’s investigation on this point.

The Council said it did consider road safety as part of its planning decision and concluded that there were no recorded personal injuries and the argument the road impacted the viability of the business had not been substantiated. This relates to the planning merits of the application, which were considered by the Planning Inspectorate, so the law says we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.

15. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council giving incorrect advice during the planning application process, including requirements relating to the application boundary. It was Mr X’s decision to follow this advice. He could have chosen not to follow this advice and used his right of appeal. When Mr X later became aware of the issue, he did raise it with the Planning Inspectorate. As this issue was considered by the Planning Inspectorate, the law says we cannot investigate it.
16. Mr X complained that part of the application fee included a site visit and the Council did not visit the site. The Council refused the application because it conflicted with its community hubs and clusters policy.
17. I will not investigate this complaint. Any injustice to Mr X from the lack of a site visit is not significant enough to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. Considering the basis for refusal, it is unlikely that a visit to the site would have resulted in a different outcome.
18. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council asking Mr X to provide a costly viability assessment that he says was unnecessary. This is because this issue was considered by the Planning Inspectorate, and so the law says we cannot investigate it.
19. Mr X complained that the Council did not explain what a viability assessment should include. I will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide information to support their application.
20. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the pre-application assessment failed to comment on some of the sustainability features included in his plans.
21. The Ombudsman is a publicly funded body and must use resources carefully. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. I do not consider the lack of detailed feedback on these elements of Mr X’s proposal caused them significant injustice. I have also considered that Mr X could have chosen to pay for pre-application advice or used a planning consultant.
22. Mr X complained about administrative errors and a lack of communication on some issues. I do not consider the information provided by Mr X demonstrates errors which have caused serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result. Therefore, I will not investigate this complaint.
23. Mr X has also complained about complaint handling. 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

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of it has already been considered by the Planning Inspectorate, and there is insufficient evidence of fault or insufficient evidence of injustice to consider the other parts, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman