Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning applications. This is because the alleged fault is not significant enough to warrant investigation and there is no basis for us to recommend the Council refunds Mr X’s application fees. If Mr X was unhappy with the length of time taken to deal with his planning applications it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delays by the Council in dealing with his planning matters. He says the Council delayed in providing its written pre-application advice, then delayed dealing with his formal planning application. He says this has resulted in an increase in the cost of materials and the timeframes for completing the development. He wants the Council to refund his fees and pay him compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council for pre-application planning advice in December 2024. The Council says his agent paid the required fee for the service on 6 January 2025, it held a meeting to discuss the proposal on 11 February 2025 and agreed Mr X could submit revised plans addressing the officer’s concerns after the meeting. It gave its formal written advice on the proposal on 12 March 2025. The Council accepts a short period of delay in issuing the written advice but this is not significant and we could not determine the extent of any increase in materials resulting from the delay.
8. Mr X also complains about delay in the handling of his formal planning applications, with the Council taking significantly more than the usual eight-week timescale to determine the applications, but this issue carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use in this case. The Council also explained to Mr X his right to request a refund of the application fee under the Government’s planning guarantee, in the event it did not determine the application within 26 weeks.
9. Mr X believes the Council should refund his pre-application and full planning application fees but there is no basis for us to recommend the Council does this. Mr X received the services he paid for- firstly to obtain advice on his planning proposal and then to determine his planning applications- and is not automatically entitled to a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of significant fault by the Council in handling Mr X’s pre-application planning advice request. In the event Mr X had concerns about delays by the Council in dealing with his planning applications it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman