Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning application. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. The complainant also had the right to appeal if he disagreed with the amount the Council said he must pay for the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application. He says the planning officer was incompetent and it took the Council too long to determine the application. Mr X says there were also delays responding to his correspondence and before the case officer requested information to support the application. Mr X says he has incurred additional costs because of the Council’s actions.
2. Mr X has also complained that the Council has said he must pay a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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.

6. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and says there were long delays. However, Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector for non-determination if he was unhappy with how long it was taking the Council to decide his application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
9. Mr X is also unhappy the Council has said he must pay a CIL and disagrees with the liability notice he has received from the Council. The CIL is a surcharge that councils can impose on new development in their areas. The surcharge only applies if the Council has a CIL policy, with details and rates on how the charge will be applied. Most new development that creates additional floor space of 100 square metres or more is likely to be liable for a charge.
10. Some developments may be eligible for relief or exemptions from the levy. It is possible to appeal against CIL charges in certain circumstances, including if someone disagrees with how the charge has been calculated. The Planning Inspector deals with appeals relating to liability for CIL and the Valuation Office Agency deals with appeals about the amount of CIL due to be paid. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use his appeal right if he disagreed with how the Council calculated the CIL payment.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector. Mr X also had a right to appeal if he disagreed with the amount the Council said he must pay for the CIL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman