Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s refused planning applications compared to its handling of an approved application. This is because we cannot investigate where the complainant has used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the approved application and, in any, case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way that application was determined.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council treated his planning applications less favourably than an application for a larger development nearby. In particular, he says the Council:
• did not follow the same consultation process.
• refused his applications on the grounds that the extension would be too bulky, block sunlight, and cause traffic. Yet, no traffic survey has been carried out for the approved application.

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 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
• 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 we find there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. But 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)
6. And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above applies to any parts of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on his own applications. He has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the refusals, so we cannot investigate the Council’s handling of those applications.
9. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 6 also applies to the Council’s decision to approve the other application Mr X is complaining about. The application was approved in October 2024, yet Mr X only contact the Ombudsman in December 2025. I see no good reasons why he was prevented from complaining to us sooner, so we will not investigate the Council’s handling of that planning application either.
10. And even if that time restriction was not relevant, 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 the Council made its decision on the approved application. If we decide there is insufficient evidence of 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.
11. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, so the Ombudsman would not investigate for this reason too. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• as Mr X’s property does not adjoin the site, he would not have received a neighbour notification letter about the application.
• a Transport Assessment was submitted with the application, and the Highways Authority did not raise any objections to the proposal.
• the objections to the proposal are summarised in the report to the Planning Committee.
• the Committee report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on: highways and parking, residential amenity, and the character/appearance of the area.
• each application is assessed on its own merits, taking into account the individual circumstances of the particular site.
• the Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the proposal was acceptable, even if Mr X disagrees with the decision it reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• he has used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the Council’s refusal of his own applications.
• it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner about the approved application.
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the approved application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman