Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council requesting amendments to the complainant’s planning application one day before the determination deadline. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or of the alleged fault affecting the outcome, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to have used their right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if they disagreed with the proposed amendment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council requested a significant change to the materials proposed in their planning application only a day before the determination deadline.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did.
5. Rather, we consider whether there was any fault in how the Council made its decisions, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if there is clear evidence of fault in the way a decision was made which, but for that fault, is likely to have led to a different decision or a more positive outcome for the complainant.
6. 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 have appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
7. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector can consider appeals about:

• a decision to refuse planning permission
• conditions placed on planning permission

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, including their complaint correspondence.
• information about Mrs X’s planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. With reference to paragraph 4 above, whilst it might have been preferable or good practice for the amendment to have been requested earlier, on balance, I do not consider the timing of the request amounts to fault.
10. And even if the amendment had been requested earlier, I am not persuaded the outcome/or options available to Mrs X would have been any different. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on what materials were deemed to be acceptable, and Mrs X would still have had to decide whether to either make the requested amendment, or wait for a refusal and then appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
11. With reference to paragraphs 6 and 7 above, it seems reasonable to expect Mrs X to have used this right of appeal if she disagreed with the Council’s judgement on the materials.
12. For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or of the outcome being affected by the alleged fault, and it is reasonable to expect her to have used her right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman