Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of Mr Y about how the Council dealt with a planning application to extend Mr Y’s property. Mr X says the Council took too long to determine the application and Mr Y will incur significant costs because of the Council’s delay.

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
• conditions placed on planning permission
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr Y’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

5. Most planning applications should be determined within eight weeks, although the time limit is 13 weeks for major applications. If the planning application has not been determined by the end of this period, and an extension has not been agreed in writing, the applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant can also appeal to the Planning Inspector if they disagree with the council’s decision to refuse planning permission.
6. A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008. It allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floorspace of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, is liable for the levy.

What happened

7. In 2019, Mr Y applied to the Council to extend his property. Before the application was due to be determined, the Council contacted Mr X as it had mislaid some documents and therefore it said the application would not be determined within eight weeks.
8. Following this there was further correspondence between Mr X and the Council about the application and another delay before planning permission was granted in April 2020. The Council implemented the CIL on 1 April 2020. As this was before planning permission was granted, Mr Y became liable for the CIL.
9. Mr X has complained about how the Council has dealt with the planning application and says it should use its discretion not to charge Mr Y the CIL.

Assessment

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application or its decision to charge Mr Y the CIL. This is because he could have used his right to appeal to a government minister.
11. I understand Mr X says the Council took too long to determine the application and by the time it granted permission it had implemented the CIL. He says Mr Y will therefore incur significant costs because of the Council’s delays. However, it would have been reasonable for Mr Y to use his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with how long it was taking the Council to determine the application. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal does not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice.
12. I understand Mr X has said Mr Y could not have appealed to the Planning Inspector until the extended deadline had passed by which time the Council had already introduced the CIL. But Mr Y did not need to agree to the Council’s extension request and could have instead appealed to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with how long it was taking the Council to deal with the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman