Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on her planning application. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. Even if we did investigate the matter, Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate because of the Council’s non‑determination of her planning application, which it would have been reasonable for her to have used.

The complaint

1. Mrs X was a planning applicant, represented by her planning agent. Her agent lodged her application with the Council in late 2018. The Council granted the permission about nine months later.
2. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. delayed in deciding her planning application;
2. failed to properly consider and respond to her complaints.
3. Mrs X says the delays caused her financial losses and she had to borrow money. She says she has incurred additional costs due to her permission now being subject to the Council’s new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Mrs X says the delay in getting permission delayed the work, so she could not rent out parts of the property to help fund the development, and the works were affected by the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. She says she had to live in poor conditions in the property for many additional months and was caused emotional distress from being neglected and ignored. Mrs X wants the Council to acknowledge the delay was its fault and to provide her with financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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))
6. The Planning Inspector (PINS) acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The PINS 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

7. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council had been due to determine Mrs X’s planning application in early 2019. So Mrs X has known the Council’s decision was delayed since that time. Mrs X has raised her complaint with us about the Council’s delay in November 2020. We expect people to bring complaints to us within 12 months of their knowing about the issue giving rise to their complaint. Eighteen months passed between Mrs X knowing about the matter complained of, and the date of her complaint to us. This means Mrs X’s complaint is late.
9. We may decide to investigate a late complaint but will only do so if we consider there are good reasons. I do not consider there are such grounds to exercise our discretion to investigate here. I say this because even if the complaint were not late, I do not consider we would investigate it.
10. We do not normally investigate complaints from planning applicants about a council delaying the decision on their application. This is because planning applicants have a formal right of appeal to the PINS where a planning authority does not determine their application in time, normally within eight weeks of its validation. We would expect planning applicants to use that right of appeal where it applies. The Council made its decision about six months after Mrs X’s application was validated, so Mrs X had that PINS appeal right available to her.
11. Mrs X says she did not know about the PINS service or her appeal rights. But Mrs X was represented throughout by a planning agent. It is not fault by the Council if Mrs X’s agent did not advise her of her appeal options.
12. Mrs X and her agent agreed to time extensions to change the plans and for the Council to makes its decision. The planning officer’s report says Mrs X’s agent submitted amended plans in summer 2019 which changed the parking provision, the width of one of the houses, and the front elevation design. Mrs X and her agent chose to pursue the application with the Council rather than appealing to the PINS for non‑determination after the initial decision deadline had passed.
13. I have not seen evidence the Council prevented Mrs X and her agent from using her PINS appeal right here. I consider it was reasonable for Mrs X to have used that appeal right, so there are no good reasons for us to investigate Mrs X’s late complaint now.
14. Where we do not intend to investigate the core issue which gave rise to someone’s complaint, we would not investigate the council’s internal complaints process in isolation. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate Mrs X’s concerns about how the Council responded to her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now;
• there are no good reasons to investigate now because Mrs X had a right of appeal to the PINS against the Council’s non-determination of her planning application, which it would have been reasonable for her to have used;
• we will not consider a council’s internal complaints process in isolation where we do not intend to investigate the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman