Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response about the concerns the complainant raised in relation to his planning application fee.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. He says he has been treated unfairly by the Council and there were delays. Mr X says the Council has granted permission for similar developments in the area and he was given no support. Mr X says the Council should refund the full planning application fee he paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• 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 provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X withdrew his planning application as he thought it was unlikely the Council would support the proposal. However, Mr X could have chosen to continue with the application and appealed to the Planning Inspector if the Council refused permission for the development. Mr X also could have appealed to the Inspector after eight weeks if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to determine his application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
8. The Council has refunded the planning application fee Mr X paid, but it has not returned the additional fee he paid to use the planning portal to submit his application. The Council has said it would not refund the planning portal fee as this was a separate administration charge for the service Mr X used. Mr X says the Council’s website encouraged him to use the planning portal and it should also refund this fee. However, I consider it clear from the Council’s website that applications do not need to be submitted online and Mr X could have chosen to apply without using the planning portal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. It is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response about Mr X’s request for a refund of his planning fee.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman