Summary: We will not investigate Mr V’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application and the inconvenience this caused. This is because Mr V had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.

The complaint

1. Mr V complains about the time taken by the Council to determine a planning application, saying that the delay caused frustration and inconvenience. Mr V is seeking the refund of his planning application fee and compensation in recognition of the time spent seeking a resolution.

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))
3. 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
• a planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr V, which included the Council’s responses to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr V submitted a planning application in November 2020, with an expected determination date in January 2021. The application was not determined until March 2021. Mr V says that the Council did not respond to requests for updates on the progress of his application, prompting him to complain to the Council and lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate. Following discussion between all parties, Mr V withdrew his appeal and the Council proceeded to determine Mr V’s application in March 2021. The Council responded to Mr V’s complaints, acknowledging the delay, but declined to refund costs or pay compensation, advising that elements of the delay had been unavoidable. Mr V approached the Ombudsman because he felt the Council had not offered sufficient redress.
7. The restriction outlined in paragraph 2 applies in this case. The Planning Inspectorate provides a right of appeal concerning delays in deciding planning applications; Mr V had the right of appeal, which we would reasonably have expected him to use in this case. This is the case even if an appeal would not have provided redress for all the injustice claimed.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr V’s complaint about the Council’s delay in determining a planning application and the inconvenience this caused. This is because Mr V had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which we would reasonably have expected him to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman