Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint, brought by Mr Y, about the Council’s delay in deciding and its refusal of a planning application, and its responses to his complaint. As the applicant, Mr Y had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of the application and against the Council’s refusal of the permission, appeals which were not unreasonable for him to have used. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X is Mr Y’s daughter. Mr Y says he has been helping Miss X with planning and development matters on a property. Mr Y complains:
1. the Council took over 20 weeks to decide a planning application;
2. he is not happy with the Council’s decision;
3. the Council did not properly reply to the complaint.
2. Mr Y says the delay caused to the build by the Council meant the contractor left the job, delaying the work, leading to additional costs and stress to him and Miss X, for which he seeks compensation.

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 provided by Mr Y, relevant online planning documents and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y was the planning applicant. He contacted the Council about the planning process delay when it was nine weeks past the eight‑week deadline. Where a decision is overdue, councils and applicants may agree to extend the deadline. The Council confirms there was no such arrangement. It accepts there was fault in its communication with Mr Y about the delay. The Council subsequently refused his application for planning permission.
7. We will not investigate complaints about matters which carry a right of appeal to a tribunal or a government minister. Complaints about delays in making a planning decision and a refusal of planning attract rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State and is the proper authority to decide planning appeals.
8. We may investigate complaints if we consider it would have been unreasonable for an applicant to use their appeal rights. As an applicant in the planning process, Mr Y had a responsibility to make himself aware of the appeals available should the need arise, or to appoint a professional agent to advise him, including of his appeal rights on non‑determination grounds. Mr Y’s planning application form shows he also had an agent to support him during the process. In respect of the Council’s planning decision, the decision notice sent to Mr Y’s agent gave details of how to appeal against it to the Inspectorate. Mr Y had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, firstly on the grounds of the Council’s non‑determination of his application after eight weeks, and secondly against its decision to refuse the permission. These were both appeal rights it was not unreasonable for him to have used, so we will not investigate.
9. We note Mr Y says the Council’s planning process led to him and Miss X suffering additional costs and stress. If they considered the Council’s actions during the process were unreasonable, they could have submitted a claim for their losses as part of their appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
10. Mr Y says he is not satisfied by the Council’s complaint responses. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as made by Mr Y because:
• he had rights of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for the Council’s initial non-determination of his application and its decision to refuse the permission, which it was not unreasonable for him to have used; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman