Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about planning permission issues. It is reasonable to expect him to have appealed about delays in deciding the application. It is unlikely we would find fault or that he has been caused any significant injustice by the other matters he complains of.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s planning teams advice to him and its delays.

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), as amended)
3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about: delay – eight or thirteen weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission;

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s complaint replies.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the planning application documents.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he applied in June 2022 for planning permission for a major domestic development project. He says following advice he withdrew the application. He resubmitted it in October 2022. The Council’s planning officer recommended refusal. The Council’s planning committee considered the application in May 2023 and recommended approval. The Council issued the planning approval notice in August 2023.
7. Mr X says the Council unfairly delayed. Mr X had the option of appealing to the Planning Inspector once 13 weeks had passed from the date he applied. It is reasonable to expect him to have done so as this is the remedy Parliament established for planning delays.
8. Mr X says that he was unhappy with the advice the planning officer gave him about whether he needed planning permission and the need for specific reports to accompany the application. Mr X engaged planning agents to submit his application. The Council says they should have been aware of the need for planning permission for a development of this size in its intended location.
9. The planning officer’s report refers to the specific reports Mr X says he had to obtain. It is unlikely we would find Mr X has been caused any significant injustice by having to get the reports as it helped to get the planning permission approved.
10. Mr X says an officer was rude to him. There is no practical prospect we could investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about planning issues because it is reasonable to expect him to have appealed, and it is unlikely we could find fault or that it has caused him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman