Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the complainant’s planning applications. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling and refusal of her non-material amendment (NMA) application. In particular, she says the Council:
• failed to request correct/appropriate drawings when determining the original application in 2024, or impose a relevant condition, which would have avoided the subsequent issues with the ridge and terrace heights.
• failed to properly assess the drawings submitted with the NMA, or consider an approved drainage drawing.
• has requested another full application be submitted instead, with accompanying retrospective plans which is unreasonable, costly and procedurally incorrect.

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
• 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 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 and can consider appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Miss X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence and the Council’s decision letters for the NMA applications.
• information about Miss X’s applications for the site, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy about the Council’s handling of her applications.
9. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. 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. On balance, I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled the applications referred to in the complaint, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• it is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the plans submitted with an application are accurate.
• the development was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
• the Council has explained its reasons for refusing Miss X’s NMA application. This was a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Miss X disagrees with it.
11. And if Miss X disagreed with the plans/documents the Council requested during the determination of her more recent full application, it seems reasonable to expect her to have waited for the application to be refused, and then appealed to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman