Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his planning application properly, causing delay, distress and financial loss. We found the Council to be at fault because there were avoidable errors in the planning consent that meant another application had to be made. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to apologise, refund the fee for the second application and make a symbolic payment in recognition Mr X’s distress and frustration.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his planning application. This meant he had to submit another planning application.
2. Specifically, he complains:
1. the planning consent included an incorrect description of the development and incorrectly labeled plans;
2. the Council incorrectly told him the error could be resolved by correspondence; and
3. the second application took too long to decide.
3. Mr X says the Council’s mistakes delayed the application process, significantly increasing the cost of the development.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. Where we recommend payment as a remedy, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning applications

9. Most development needs planning permission from the local council.
10. On deciding a planning application, the council issues a decision notice either granting or refusing planning permission for the development.
11. Once permission is granted, people sometimes need to change their development proposals. If the changes are ‘fundamental’, people may need to make a new application to the council and complete the planning process again. If so, people may apply for permission to develop without complying with those conditions. (See section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (‘Section 73’).)

Scheme of delegation

12. A council’s Constitution sets out the ways in which officers of the Council can make decisions and which decisions they have power to make.
13. The Council’s Constitution states that the Head of Development Management has the power to determine any planning application except those specifically excluded. This includes where the intended delegated decision on a planning application would be contrary to the written view of any statutory consultee.

What happened

14. Mr X is a property developer. In December 2023, he was granted planning permission to build a home of multiple occupation (HMO). Due to some amendments to his plans, he had to submit another planning application. Permission was granted in December 2024.
15. Upon receipt of the decision notice, Mr X identified three areas of concern that her raised with the case officer.

• The description of the development was incorrect.
• A condition had been included that had not been raised by the Council previously and would not be possible to satisfy.
• The drawings were incorrectly labelled.

16. In response, Mr X was told:

• he would need to submit a section 73 application to explain why the condition could not be met; and
• the Council could issue, what it described as a “comfort letter”. This would serve to clarify what plans had been assessed when the Council made its decision and confirm the accurate description of the development.

17. Mr X questioned the need for a section 73 application, but accepted a comfort letter was an acceptable way forward. He confirmed this on 4 February 2025.
18. Mr X heard nothing further, despite sending two reminders. His third letter was treated as a formal complaint by the Council. He explained the unexpected delay was causing considerable expense, due to loan repayments and other costs.
19. The Council issued its stage one complaint response on 7 March 2025. It said:

• the description was varied by Mr X during the application process and could only been corrected by him making a new planning application;
• the onus was on Mr X to demonstrate why the condition could not be satisfied. A section 73 application was necessary; and
• the error with the drawings could only be remedied by a section 73 application.

20. Overall, his complaint was upheld because the Council accepted it used incorrect drawing numbers and failed to resolve the description issue sooner.
21. Mr X said he had no choice but to submit a new planning application the same day. This would serve to resolve all the problematic issues. He asked the Council to process this as quickly as possible, preferably within four weeks. He reminded the Council the previous application had taken longer than it should have taken and he should not be penalised by further delay, especially it was an almost identical report. He put the Council on notice of his intention to recover his expenses that had only arisen because of mistakes by the Council.
22. In response, the Council:

• apologised for the incorrect previous advice given about a comfort letter being sufficient; and
• said the case officer had expedited the progress of the case to ensure a speedy conclusion. However, the standard process still had to followed, including consultation with neighboring properties, statutory consultees and other Council departments.

23. Upon fresh consultation, the new application received a negative consultation response from the Council’s conservation/heritage office, despite it not objecting the two previous, almost identical applications. Mr X says he felt he had no choice but to pay to instruct a consultant to write a report, in response to the objections.
24. He was then told his application had to be considered by the Council’s Planning Committee, rather that under the Chief Officer’s delegated powers. This would not take place until July 2025, because the deadline for the June committee had just been missed.
25. Planning permission was granted by the Committee on 17 July 2025. Mr X attended the meeting with his planning agent.
26. Disappointed by the Council’s failure to offer any form of financial compensation for the significant extra costs (approximately £12,000) the development had incurred as a result of the further delay, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He says his additional costs included:

• the cost of a further application;
• planning agent fees;
• development loan interest; and
• heritage consultant fees.

27. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council agreed to refund the cost of the final application (£3,468). It did not agree to cover any addition expenses because, in summary, it said:

• the errors with the description and plans arose because Mr X altered the height of the development during the application process. The Council could have insisted a fresh application was necessary but used its discretion to accept amendments instead;
• it was Mr X’s choice to finance the development in the way he did and to instruct an agent and heritage officer to assist with the application process; and
• every application had to be assessed on its own merits and the planning office had no influence on how a different conservation officer would assess the final application.

Analysis

28. The Council already accepted it was at fault because there were fundamental errors with the plans and drawings.
29. Mr X was then given incorrect advice that the mistake could be rectified by way of correspondence. A month later, he was told a new application a new application was necessary. Mr X should have been told from the outset he needed to make a fresh application. He could have done so in January 2025, instead of March 2025. Failure to do so was further fault.
30. I am satisfied these faults and resulting delay caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. While I welcome the Council’s offer to refund the fee for the final application. I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy his distress and frustration and this is reflected in my recommendations below.
31. I have not found fault with how the Council processed the final application. I accept the Council’s position that it had to follow due process, effectively looking at it with “fresh eyes”. Following the negative consultation response from the conservation officer, the Head of Service had a discretionary power to refer the application to the Planning Committee. Whilst I acknowledge this decision led to further delay, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make and one the Ombudsman cannot criticise.
32. During my investigation, Mr X was asked to provide a breakdown of his costs, upon which the Council was invited to comment.
33. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal, as I consider is the case here. We decide on suitable remedies for injustice caused by council fault. Developers aim to make profits but many different factors can affect the costs of finance and I cannot speculate on what might have happened were it not for the faults in this case.
34. For this reason, I am unable to consider whether there is merit in Mr X’s submissions about the financial consequences of the Council’s fault. His claim for economic losses should be made to the through the courts, not the Ombudsman. The agreed remedy (below) reflects this position.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within four weeks from the date of my final action, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £3468, this being the application fee for the second application.
3. Pay Mr X £500 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the avoidable delay caused by incorrect advice given to Mr X regarding the comfort letter.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to action my recommendations to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

38. Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman