Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and retrospective planning application. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and a retrospective planning application. Mr X says there have been delays by the Council and he has been given misleading advice.

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. 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), 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.

5. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a breach of planning control and says he was incorrectly told some of the works he was carrying out to his property did not need planning permission. Mr X says he relied on this advice and continued with these works while the retrospective application was pending. Mr X says this incorrect advice could have led to additional costs if the retrospective application was refused and enforcement action taken. However, even if there was fault by the Council in this regard, I do not consider Mr X has suffered any significant injustice as the Council has since granted permission for the development.
9. Mr X has also complained about how long it took the Council to determine his retrospective planning application. However, 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 decide his application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not suffered any significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault. Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with how long it was taking the Council to decide his application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman