Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his planning applications. We did not find the Council was at fault. Although there was a minor error, this was promptly corrected and so did not amount to fault. Nor did we find fault with the delegated decision to reject a second application or its decision to restrict its contact with Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his planning application and related matters. Specifically, he complains the Council:
1. incorrectly refused to determine his planning application;
2. incorrectly claimed officers had delegated powers to make this decision; and
3. unfairly restricted his contact when trying to raise a legitimate concern about the legality of the actions of the Council.
2. As a result, Mr X says he had no choice but to make an avoidable and expensive appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. He believes he should be compensated for the costs incurred in this application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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; and
• a planning enforcement notice.

5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Planning applications

8. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA), section 70B

9. A council may decline to determine a planning application if it believes the proposed development is the same, or substantially the same as a previous one.

The Council’s unreasonable behaviour policy

10. Under the Council’s policy, unreasonable behaviour includes contact after a decision has been made. The Council will not continue communicating on a closed case outside of it review or service complaints procedures. Continued contact to make the same concern prevents the Council from carrying out its work effectively.
11. The Council’s policy states that in most instances, if someone’s behaviour is unreasonable, it will explain why and ask them to change it. It will also warn someone that if the behaviour continues, action may be taken to restrict contact with the Council.
12. Restrictions can include providing a single point of contact.
13. If someone is unhappy about the Council’s decision about unreasonable behaviour, they can request and appeal.

What happened

14. In August 2024, Mr X applied to the Council for planning permission to develop his home (the August Application). The Council asked for Mr X’s permission to extend the time for making its decision to 30 November 2024. The decision was not made by this deadline.
15. On 11 December 2024, Mr X submitted another planning application (the December Application). He did so because he believed the August application has expired because the Council did not request an extension past 30 November 2024.
16. The August Application was refused on18 December 2024 because of concerns raised by the tree preservation officer.
17. The Council refused to consider the December Application, because it was too similar to its predecessor. It relied on the TCPA Section 70B, specifically condition 2.
18. In March 2025, Mr X submitted an appeal about the refusal of the August application. to the Planning Inspectorate. This was ultimately successful, but Mr X incurred significant costs in achieving this outcome. He says the Council had no grounds to refuse to determine his December Application because the August Application had already expired.
19. This formed the basis of a formal complaint. The Council refused to consider his request under its corporate complaints policy. Instead, it was dealt with as a service request because it considered the objective sought by Mr X was to overturn a decision on a planning application. Mr X says this was not entirely correct, because he also sought to ensure procedures were properly followed. He was told the decision to not determine the December Application stood. Frustrated by this outcome, Mr X carried out further research and became concerned that the decision to not determine his December Application should have been made by the Council’s Development Management Committee, not by an individual officer. The relevant scheme of delegation referred to sections of the 1990 Act that could be determined by officers. This list did not include section 70B.
20. Mr X raised another formal complaint about this specific issue in March 2025. In response, he was told that under the Council’s constitution, determinations under section 70B could be made by officers.
21. Upon further research, Mr X discovered the Council’s scheme of delegation had been amended to include Section 70B, since he had made his complaint. Mr X says this change was made without following the correct procedure. Mr X also had sight of internal correspondence showing officers had requested a swift amendment to the scheme of delegation about another application that required determination under Section 70B.
22. In response, the Council:

• explained the Chief Executive had the delegated authority to determine what specific provisions were included in the scheme of delegation;
• acknowledged the internal emails contained inaccuracies and may have given Mr X the wrong impression. An apology was given;
• confirmed its previous position about Mr X’s planning applications; and
• deemed Mr X to be an unreasonable complainant because of the volume of this correspondence and the disproportionate impact this had on officers’ time. He was restricted to a single point of contact.

23. Disappointed by this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s position.

24. In response to Mr X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• It accepts the August Application was determined without a further time extension having been requested. It explained that Mr X is familiar with the planning process, having made several previous applications, some of which were also determined out of time. This meant Mr X was aware his application would not have expired, as he claimed and this view is corroborated by correspondence with Mr X in December 2024.
• Mr X’s appropriate course of action to challenge the determination of the August Application was to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, not to submit another application.
• The Council remained of the view Section 70B was applicable to the December application because it was substantially similar to its predecessor.
• Amendments to the Council’s scheme of delegation were made, partly in response to issues raised by Mr X. This was to clarify the roles of officers in decision making that they already had. It was not, as claimed by Mr X, an attempt to retrospectively devolve powers to officers.
• The Council accepts it made an error when Mr X was initially told the December application was refused on the wrong condition of Section 70B. However, this mistake was promptly corrected when highlighted by Mr X.
• Mr X was not informed of its intention to include him on its “Unreasonable Behaviours” register. Instead, he was notified of the decision and advised him of his right of appeal. Mr X exercised this right, and the decision was upheld in July 2025.

Analysis

Refusal to determine the December Application

25. Mr X is of the strongly held opinion that his August application had effectively lapsed because the Council failed to make a decision by 30 November 2024. The law allows for applicants to file a non-determination appeal if a decision is not made within the agreed extension period. It does not state the application is rendered null and void, as claimed by Mr X. We are not a planning appeal body, and I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure when making its decision to rely on Section 70B when rejecting the December Application because of the similarities to its predecessor.
26. The Council has already accepted it initially relied on the wrong provision within Section 70B. However, because this mistake was promptly acknowledged and corrected when it was brought to the attention of officers by Mr X, I will not make a finding of fault on this matter.

Delegated powers

27. In response to both Mr X’s complaint and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has provided a detailed explanation as to why the exclusion of decision making under Section 70B from the list of delegated powers did not invalidate the officer’s decision about the December Application. In summary, the Council’s position is that the list of functions reserved for the full Council or Committee did not include Section 70B. The list of provisions was not an exhaustive list and exclusion of a specific provision did not necessarily mean the December Application could not be determined by officers, as claimed by Mr X.
28. I accept this analysis, as well as the explanation that the scheme of delegation is a working document that may require updating when circumstances arise. The Council confirms the request to specifically include Section 70B in the scheme was in response to Mr X’s complaint, and to improve clarity
29. Mr X was understandably concerned when he read internal emails disclosed is response to his Freedom of Information Act request. They clearly stated the scheme of delegation needed to be amended because officers did not have the authority to make the decision. This was not correct. Whilst I acknowledge this will have reinforced Mr X’s position that the Council’s decision making was flawed, this matter was clarified and an apology offered in July 2025. I consider this to be an appropriate remedy for any distress caused to Mr X.

Unreasonable behaviour

30. I recognise Mr X’s concern that he was not advised of the Council’s intention to restrict his contact with officers. Whilst the Ombudsman and the Council’s own policy would normally expect this, the latter does allow for this to be waived in exceptional circumstances. I consider this to be such a case. It is clear from the summary of the volume of Mr X’s contact with several different departments over this and other matters was having a negative impact on efficiency and productivity.
31. When notified of its decision, Mr X was properly provided with a copy of its unreasonable policy and advised of his right of appeal. This was exercised by Mr X.
32. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions regarding this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman