Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay by the Council in validating his planning applications. This is because the delay carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use. We also could not provide a remedy for the increase in costs Mr X claims as a result of the alleged delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council delayed making a decision on his planning applications by wrongly refusing to validate the applications. He says this has resulted in the cost of materials for the builds more than doubling. He wants the Council to reimburse him for the additional cost and apologise.

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 may decide not to start an investigation if 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. 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))
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The law provides a right of appeal for disputes about the validation of planning applications. If Mr X was concerned the Council had failed to validate his applications without good reason it would have been reasonable for him to serve notice on the Council under Article 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. If the Council had then issued a ‘non-validation notice’ or failed to reply, we would have expected Mr X to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
7. However, even if we decided it would not have been reasonable for Mr X to follow this process and appeal, it is unlikely we would investigate as we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. The Council has already apologised and we could not tell it to reimburse Mr X for the additional cost of materials he claims. This is a consequential loss and it is not for us to provide a remedy for it. It is also too speculative for us as the alleged delay relates to a period of only two months and it is unlikely we could quantify the amount of any increase in costs over this period.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to serve notice on the Council and, if necessary, appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman