Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on his Certificate of Lawful Development application, and its refusal of the application. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for both the delay, and the refusal. It was reasonable for Mr X to use that appeal. The Planning Inspectorate is the body which can provide Mr X with the outcome he wants, the grant of his permission.

The complaint

1. Mr X made a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) application for a residential annexe in his back garden in September 2018. He complains the Council delayed in determining the CLD, and then refused it in January 2019. Mr X wants the Council to grant him the CLD.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector (PI) as soon as the deadline for the Council to determine his CLD had passed in November 2018. I note Mr X says the Council kept moving the date for the CLD to be determined. But if Mr X was unhappy with the time taken by the Council at any point, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the PI on the grounds of non-determination of his application after the November 2018 deadline. That is the appeal process for an applicant to use where a planning authority delays a decision without the applicant’s agreement.
6. Mr X had a further right of appeal to the PI when the Council refused his CLD in January 2019. The Council’s decision letter included details of the PI, and advice on appealing its decision.
7. The PI is the independent appeal body with the expertise to reconsider the merits of a planning application, and decide whether a council’s decision was correct. It is the appropriate body to have considered Mr X’s concerns. The Ombudsman cannot overturn a council’s planning decision, which is the outcome Mr X is seeking from his complaint. It is reasonable for Mr X to have used his PI appeal to pursue the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• Mr X had a right of appeal to the PI on the grounds of non-determination of his CLD by the Council;
• Mr X had a further right of appeal to the PI against the Council’s refusal of his CLD;
• it was reasonable for Mr X to have used those appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman