Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning application. Mr X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for him to use and the Council has provided a sufficient remedy in any event. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his planning application. He says it delayed in validating the application, asked for additional documents which were not needed and took too long to make its decision. As a result he says his builder was not available to carry out the work and the costs have increased. Mr X is also unhappy the Council threatened action against him for an unpaid invoice and says it delayed in responding to his complaint.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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))
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
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X applied for planning permission to develop his property in mid-2021. The Council requested further information about the proposal and Mr X provided this in October 2021. We cannot say the Council was wrong to request the additional information or to decline to progress the application without it. If Mr X had disputed the need for the information it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate; this would have been on the grounds of non-determination (delay).
9. Mr X is unhappy the Council took almost three months to acknowledge the additional information and a further month to validate his application. But again this is something which it would have been reasonable for him to put to the Planning Inspectorate. Any complaint about the delay between October 2021 and 12 January 2022 is also late in accordance with Paragraph 3 as it dates to more than 12 months before Mr X’s complaint to us.
10. While we have discretion to look at the Council’s delay from 12 January 2022 until it validated Mr X’s application it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X by doing so. The Council has acknowledged failures in its handling of the application and agreed to refund Mr X’s application fee of £206 in recognition of this. It has also offered a further £294 to acknowledge the time, trouble and distress he experienced as a result of its actions, including its demand for payment of the invoice, which related to building control fees. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.
11. Mr X claims increase in costs as a result of the Council’s delay but these are consequential losses which are too speculative for us to remedy.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the issues which fall within our jurisdiction. Other aspects of the complaint are late and/or carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which we consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use. Any claim for consequential losses resulting from the Council’s delay is too speculative for us to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman