The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an independent investigation into the Council’s processing of planning applications and enforcement action spanning many years. The underlying injustice stems from the Council’s decisions on planning matters which have either been appealed or the complainant had a right of appeal and are therefore outside our jurisdiction.
The complaint
I shall call the complainant’s representative Mr Y and the complainant Mr X.
Mr X says the Council failed to carry out a thorough, independent investigation into the actions of Officers on multiple planning applications and enforcement action. And it failed to investigate his concerns that the actions of his neighbour had directly influenced Officer’s actions. He says the Council: refused planning applications took longer to deal with planning appeals; and took unjustified enforcement action because of complaints by his neighbour and the actions of Council Officers.
Mr Y wants the Ombudsman to order the Council to pay for another investigation to include: a full review of historic files, committee meetings and planning meetings interviews with relevant staff under caution; and disciplinary action should be taken where misconduct is revealed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about: delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission a decision to refuse planning permission conditions placed on planning permission a planning enforcement notice.
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the significant amount of information provided by Mr Y.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s concerns cover a period going back more than 10 years. He says Council officers conspire to make any planning he carries out on his land to be as lengthy, unproductive, and stressful as possible.
However, the law says that we cannot consider any matters about applications or enforcement notices which have been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. Or where the complainant had a right of appeal but chose not to exercise that right. The courts have held this to be the case even where the appeal will not provide a remedy for all the injustice claimed by the complainant.
Following complaints from Mr X, the Council offered to engage an independent firm of solicitors to examine a sample of Mr X’s planning applications. He is not satisfied with the investigation or the outcome and wants us to order the Council to pay for a second, independent investigation.
Final decision
Mr X’s complaint relates to planning refusals and enforcement action. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law says we cannot consider complaints which relate to matters which have already been the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspector, or where the complainant had a right of appeal.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman