Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of the complainant’s refused planning application in comparison to another approved application, and also about the subsequent complaint responses. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and, in any case, we are unlikely to be able to conclude the Council acted with fault. It would also not be a good use of our resources to look at the complaints process on its own.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains her planning application was handled inconsistently and unfairly in comparison to another identical application which was approved. She also says the Council introduced new issues about her proposal during the subsequent complaint process which hadn’t been raised when determining her previous applications.
2. Mrs X says the Council's inconsistent and unclear decision-making has caused significant stress, frustration, and uncertainty, and she has incurred considerable financial loss from architectural drawings and planning application fees for multiple submissions. Additionally, the time and effort spent preparing applications that were unfairly assessed has been wasted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 and 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 Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about Mrs X’s planning applications and the approved application she refers to, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. I appreciate Mrs X says she is not complaining about the refusal of her planning application. Rather, she says it has failed to apply its adopted policies and reasoning consistently and then failed to address those inconsistencies through the complaints process.
10. But these matters are intrinsically related to the planning decision, and it was open to Mrs X to challenge that decision by appealing to the Planning Inspectorate. She appealed a previous and subsequent application, so it seems reasonable to expect her to have also appealed against the decision being complained about. With reference to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues being complained about.
11. And even if this restriction did not apply, I consider an investigation is unlikely to be able to conclude the Council acted with fault. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• officers are required to determine planning applications on their own facts and merits, taking into account the individual circumstances/context of the site and surrounding area. This may result in planning decisions and judgements which seem inconsistent. While councils aim for consistency through application of local and national policy, a divergence of opinion and approach is inevitable where different decisions and professional judgements are made by different people at different times in relation to different sites. Where opinions differ, we are not able to say which are right or wrong.
• as I read it, rather than introducing new factors or concerns, the Council’s complaint response merely seeks to highlight how the differing separation distances between neighbouring properties affects the overall assessment of spaciousness and appearance of the two application sites. If Mrs X had wanted further detailed guidance/input on why her applications were being refused and what might be considered acceptable, it was open to her to use the Council’s pre‑application advice service following those refusals.
• I also note the approved application site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac adjacent to a footpath and vegetated areas, whereas Mrs X’s property is located on a more prominent corner plot at the junction of two residential roads. i.e. the two locations are different.
12. As (for the above reasons) we are not investigating the substantive issues being complained about, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any other concerns about the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, we are unlikely to be able to conclude the Council acted with fault, and it would not be a good use of our resources to look at the complaints process on its own.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman