Summary: Ms X says the Council did not properly manage her planning application resulting in its refusal. She says this delayed building work and impacted her financially. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council did not properly manage her planning application causing its refusal. She says this delayed work and meant she had to pay for a new application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

7. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
8. Most planning applications should be decided within eight weeks, although the time limit is 13 weeks for major applications. If the planning application has not been decided by the end of this period, and an extension has not been agreed in writing, the applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government).
9. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides guidance for councils drawing up local development plans and is a material consideration in deciding applications. It says decision on applications should be made as quickly as possible, and within statutory timescales unless a longer period has been agreed by the applicant in writing. (Para 48 NPPF)
10. The Council requires the following for a planning application to be valid:
• Completed application form
• Correct fee
• National and local validation requirements to be met

What happened

11. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
12. Ms X was proposing to alter and extend her property and intended to apply for planning permission.
13. The Council visited Ms X’s property in October 2024. The following month the Council issued written pre-application advice to Ms X. The advice said the application would need to be supported by a geotechnical assessment including a site walkover survey. This was due to land stability issues in the area.
14. In February 2025 Ms X made a planning application to the Council. The application included a geotechnical assessment report. The report did not contain a walkover survey.
15. In March 2025 the Council validated the planning application and started public consultation.
16. The Council’s public consultation ended in early April 2025. One week later, Ms X’s representative, Mr Y, contacted the Council for an update on the application.
17. The Council replied to Mr Y two weeks later. It said it was recommending refusal of the application due to not enough detail about land stability risks. It said it needed a walkover survey.
18. Mr Y sent a revised geotechnical report to the Council on the same day. The report included a new paragraph about a walkover survey. It did not include the survey. The Council replied advising Ms X to withdraw the planning application and carry out a detailed walkover survey. The Council said it had asked for a walkover survey in its pre-application advice.
19. Ms X contacted the Council the following day. She asked to send the missing information without withdrawing the application. The Council said there was no time for public consultation on new information before the eight-week decision deadline. It said it would refuse the application if Ms X did not withdraw it that same day. Ms X and Mr Y then both sent a nine page walkover survey report to the Council. The Council refused the application because it did not have enough land stability information. The Council issued its decision four days before the eight week decision deadline at the end of April 2025.
20. Ms X complained to the Council at the end of April 2025. She complained the Council had not properly managed the planning application, failed to tell her there was a problem until it was too late and had made an early decision.
21. At the start of June 2025 the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint. It said it had worked with Ms X and her representatives during the pre-application process and was allowed to make a decision before the end of the eight week deadline. It apologised for the delay in responding to Mr Y’s first enquiry in April 2025 but said any new material provided would still have needed public consultation that extended beyond the eight week deadline.
22. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and escalated the complaint a week later.
23. The Council issued its stage two complaint response to Ms X in July 2025. It said it could have communicated better with Ms X but had given extensive pre-application advice about land stability and had raised concerns with Ms X before the eight week deadline.
24. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Ms X would like the Council to refund her new planning application costs and allow more time for information to be submitted on applications.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council said the onus was on the applicant to submit necessary information and it had sufficient details to make a decision within the eight week deadline. It said staff absences had affected some timings but the Council had dealt with all issues before the eight week deadline.

My findings

26. Paragraph 8 says most planning applications should be decided within eight weeks. The Council decided Ms X’s planning application within eight weeks. The Council was not at fault.
27. Paragraph 10 explains what the Council needs to validate a planning application. The Council confirmed it had received the geotechnical report when it validated Ms X’s planning application in March 2025. The Council did not have to check the contents of the report at this stage. Ms X and her representatives were responsible for submitting a complete report, including a walkover survey, as detailed in the pre-application information. They did not submit the completed report.
28. The Council told Mr Y it was recommending refusal of the application one week before the eight-week decision deadline at the end of April 2025. The Council accepted its communication was poor, but this did not affect the outcome of the application. The Council had clearly asked for the geotechnical assessment report to include a walkover survey. The report did not contain it. The Council was entitled to issue a decision within the deadline based on the information it had. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman