Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s planning application. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council only gave her agent three hours’ notice to decide whether or not to withdraw Ms X’s planning application which it was due to refuse. She says this short deadline was unfair and unreasonable .

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 impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s agent submitted a planning application on her behalf to the Council. No pre-application advice had been sought in advance of the submission.
6. The planning officer told Ms X the application would require a bat survey which she arranged. A week’s extension to the eight-week deadline for determination was sought by and granted to the Council.
7. On the last day by which the application was to be determined, the officer left a message for Ms X’s agent saying he had three hours to withdraw the application after which time it would be refused. The message was not picked up within the time specified and the Council later notified the agent of its decision to refuse permission.
8. Ms X complained to the Council about the unreasonably short time given to respond. The Council did not uphold the complaint although it did accept it would have been more helpful if Ms X had been given more notice of the decision being made.
9. It was not good administrative practice to have given the three-hour time limit. However, whether withdrawn or decided, Ms X did not get planning permission and the short notice period did not affect the planning outcome. Moreover, even if she had withdrawn the application, she would not have had the fee refunded.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman