Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying its decision on his planning application. Mr X and his agent had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s non-determination of his application, which it was not unreasonable for them to have used.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a planning applicant. His planning agent applied for the permission in 2023. Mr X complains the Council delayed in determining his application. He says this in turn has significantly delayed his building works and he has spent time and been caused trouble pursuing the planning decision and complaining. Mr X wants compensation for the poor service and the refund of his planning fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online planning information and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the delay in the Council’s planning decision. Mr X had professional representation during the planning process. As soon as the Council’s deadline for the decision passed, Mr X and his representative had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of the Council’s non-determination of the application. That is the formal appeal right put in place by national government for applicants whose planning decision is delayed. We will not investigate where someone had that formal appeal right available to them, which it was reasonable for them to have used, to resolve the issue now complained of. It was reasonable for Mr X’s agent, in consultation with him as their client, to use that appeal at any point after the initial eight-week 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.
6. We note Mr X’s agent may have consented to an extension of time with the Council which, after almost half of the delay had happened, Mr X seemed minded to withdraw. The Council later granted Mr X’s permission within the possible time extension. It was for Mr X to consult with his agent to decide whether to agree any extension with the Council, or withdraw consent for a previously agreed one, and instruct his planning agent in line with his wishes as their client. If Mr X considers his agent should have appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non‑determination, instead of proceeding with the delayed application through the Council’s process, that would be a matter between him and his agent.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he and his agent had appeal rights to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s non-determination of his application which it was not unreasonable for them to have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman