Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to accept her planning application for determination. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council refused to accept her planning application. She also complains about the Council’s handling of another previous application relating to the same site.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, states:

“(1) A local planning authority may decline to determine a relevant application if-

1. And of the conditions in subsections (2) to (4) is satisfied, and
2. The authority think there has been no significant change in the relevant considerations since the relevant event…

(3) The condition is that in the period the Secretary of State has dismissed an appeal-

(a) against the refusal of a similar application…”

8. The Council has decided Section 70A applies in Mrs X’s case and it therefore declined to determine her application. Mrs X disputes this as she considers she has made significant changes to the proposal refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State.
9. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. The Council has applied the correct tests to Mrs X’s application and its decision not to determine it is a matter of professional judgement. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and I have therefore seen no basis for us to question it.
11. I cannot consider Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her previous planning application as Mrs X has appealed against the decision to the Planning Inspector and we have already considered a complaint from her about its handling of the application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman