Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision to grant her planning permission and how it gave confusing and conflicting information about whether her permission would be granted. Mrs X had formal appeal right to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination which it was not unreasonable for her to have used.

The complaint

1. Mrs X was a planning applicant. She applied for permission for a development with the involvement of her professional agent. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. took 41 weeks to grant permission for her application;
2. sent confusing and conflicting information about whether her permission would be granted.
2. Mrs X says the delays and confused correspondence caused her undue stress. She says she had to seek medical advice due to the impact on her health. Mrs X says the matter caused her financial loss of over £8,000, plus further utilities costs. She wants the Council to make sure applications are dealt with in a timely way, to reimburse her planning fee, and if it cannot account for the delays, she considers it should be held liable for her claimed financial losses.

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 Inspectorate acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Inspectorate 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 from Mrs X, relevant online planning information and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The planning system as set up by national government includes formal appeal routes for planning applicants. We will not investigate complaints from applicants where they have had formal appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate that it was not unreasonable for them to have used.
7. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non‑determination of her application after the 8-week deadline elapsed. If Mrs X did not want further involvement in her application from the Council’s officers and did not want to change her original application in response to different officer views, she could have lodged an Inspectorate appeal at any time after that 8‑week date had passed. This would have taken the application out of the Council’s hands and the Inspectorate would have considered it afresh, preventing the issues about which she has complained.
8. I have considered whether it was reasonable for Mrs X to have used her appeal right on the grounds of the Council’s non-determination. Mrs X had an agent during the application so was represented by someone professionally involved in planning. She would have been aware or been made aware by her agent of her appeal rights. Mrs X also had previous planning experience from at least one earlier application. Mrs X says the Council initially delayed in starting the planning notification process. This meant the notification period would have included the 8‑week deadline date. This indicated at the start of the process that the Council would not meet the decision deadline, giving Mrs X grounds to use her non‑determination appeal. Mrs X says the Council twice sought her agent’s agreement on extensions to their time for determining the application. She says the agent did not agree either extension. This means it remained open throughout the process for Mrs X to use her non‑determination appeal. There was no impediment to Mrs X exercising that appeal right. It was not unreasonable for Mrs X to have used her appeal here so we will not investigate.
9. The significant financial outcome Mrs X seeks from her complaint requires a finding of liability for her financial losses she claims stem from the Council’s delay. We cannot make findings of liability for such financial losses. Only an insurer or the courts can make those legal liability decisions. Had Mrs X used her Planning Inspectorate appeal, she could have included as part of that appeal a claim for her losses accrued by that time.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she had a formal appeal right to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination which it was not unreasonable for her to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman