Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in deciding her planning application and unprofessional officer actions during the process. Ms X’s professional representative had the right of appeal on her behalf to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council on grounds of non‑determination of the application, which it was reasonable for them to have used. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable for Ms X by investigation of Council officers’ actions now.

The complaint

1. Ms X owns a property which was the subject of a listed building consent planning application, made by her representatives in 2021. Ms X complains the Council:
1. delayed in determining the planning application;
2. failed to deal with the planning process in a professional manner.
2. Ms X says the Council’s delay delayed the works to restore the property because contractors were no longer available to do the work until many months later. She says the property deteriorated further due to the delay. Ms X says the situation caused her mental health problems and her family and social life have suffered. She says she has lost income from letting out the property and had to live in temporary inferior accommodation for 18 months longer than should have been necessary. Ms X wants the Council to pay her compensation for all her losses, improve its planning service and investigate its unfair decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The 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.

5. 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Ms X, relevant online planning documents, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The core issue in Ms X’s complaint is the time the Council took to decide the planning application for her property. It did not meet the deadline for determination and Ms X’s representative did not agree an extension of that deadline.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the delay in the Council’s planning decision. Ms X had professional representation throughout the planning process. As soon as the Council’s deadline for the decision passed, Ms X’s representative had a right of appeal on her behalf to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. We will not investigate where someone had a formal appeal right available to them which it was reasonable for them to have used. It was reasonable for Ms X’s representative to use that appeal right any point after the deadline had passed. This would have taken the planning application out of the Council’s hands and the Inspectorate would have considered it as if the application had been made to them afresh.
9. If Ms X considers her representative should have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination, instead of proceeding with the delayed application through the Council, that would be a matter between her and her representative.
10. Ms X also complains about unprofessional Council officer behaviour during the planning process. This included requesting information which did not form the basis of the planning decision, and failing to reply and delay in responding to her and her representatives’ correspondence. We will not investigate this part of the complaint. It was within Ms X’s representatives’ control to take the application away from the involvement of Council officers by using the Planning Inspectorate appeal for non‑determination. Ms X has also received the requested planning permission and there is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved from investigating a process in which Ms X is now no longer involved through this planning matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• her planning representative had the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on her behalf against the Council on grounds of non‑determination of the application, which it was reasonable for them to have used; and
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable for her by investigation of the Council officers’ service now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman