The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application and an application to vary planning conditions. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the remaining issues complained about.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his planning application and his application to vary planning conditions. Mr X says there were long delays and the Council failed to properly consider the information he submitted with his application. Mr X says he has incurred significant costs because of the Council’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law 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)) 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector for non-determination after eight weeks if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to determine his applications. He also could have appealed if he disagreed with the conditions placed on the original planning application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his appeal right. 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 complained about.
Mr X says the case officer and environmental health officer failed to properly read the information he submitted with his application to vary the planning conditions. As a result, Mr X says his application was nearly refused. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused significant injustice as a result of any fault in this regard as the application to vary the conditions was ultimately approved.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the remaining issues complained about.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman