Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of two applications for development of her land, which she said adversely affected her health. We found poor communication and delay by the Council in dealing with Mrs X’s request to change the applicant’s name for one application. But these faults had not caused Mrs X significant personal injustice. We did not investigate the other application as Mrs X had legal appeal rights she could have reasonably used to challenge the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of proposals to develop her land because it:

• refused to issue a lawful development certificate (LDC); and
• was delaying deciding a planning application, which application it would not discuss with her.

2. Mrs X said the delays significantly impacted her mental and physical health. Mrs X wanted the Council to either allow her to implement an old planning permission or discuss with her its decision making on a more recent application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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 Inspectorate (PINs) acts on behalf of the responsible government minister. PINs consider appeals against various council planning decisions, including those about:

• delay – usually over eight weeks – by a council in deciding an application for planning permission; and
• a decision to refuse an application for a LDC.

6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with a council’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

What I have and have not investigated

Lawful development certificate

8. Planning permissions have time limits. The approved development should start on site before the time limit is reached. If not started, the planning permission will expire after the time limit and later development will normally be unlawful. If someone considers they carried out material works to start a development before the expiry date they may apply for a LDC. If satisfied the information shows those works were lawful, the council should issue the LDC. Once issued, the lawfulness of the works described in the LDC is ‘conclusively presumed’. Such a LDC then allows the person to carry out further works and complete the development.
9. The Council granted Mrs X planning permission to develop her land many years ago. Mrs X then faced various challenging and distressing events and, about eight years after the grant of permission, applied for a LDC. Mrs X provided information to show works had taken place to start the development before the permission expiry date. The Council considered the application but found no lawful start had taken place. The Council’s LDC decision notice, which Mrs X received, included information about her right to appeal (see paragraphs 4 and 5).
10. While disagreeing with the decision, Mrs X did not appeal. Mrs X understood the personal circumstances delaying the development would not be considered on appeal. Mrs X also said the Council had been inconsistent and unfair in handling her application compared to that of another developer.
11. I recognised the personal challenges Mrs X had faced after first securing planning permission to develop her land. However, the law provides a specific appeal right for people to challenge a council’s refusal to issue a LDC. I saw no grounds to find it would have been unreasonable for Mrs X to use her appeal rights. I therefore did not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

Undetermined planning application

12. Mrs X also complained about an undetermined planning application to develop her land (the Application). Councils have eight weeks to decide most planning applications. After eight weeks, planning applicants have choices. They may agree to give their council more time to decide the application; or they may appeal to PINs against the deemed refusal of planning permission (see paragraphs 4 and 5).
13. Here, the Application was made more than 12 months before Mrs X complained to us. A complaint about its handling and non-determination by the Council would be a late complaint (see paragraph 6). The non-determination of the Application was linked to concerns raised by Natural England about the impact of development on Stodmarsh Lakes. This concern affected many planning applications made to the Council. The Stodmarsh Lakes had national and international environmental legal protection. The Council was working to address Natural England’s concerns, but as of 2025, affected planning applications remained undetermined. Mrs X was aware of the issue and kept in touch with the Council about its progress in addressing Natural England’s concerns so it could determine applications.
14. Around early 2025, the Council needed to reallocate the Application to a different planning case officer. The new officer noticed the Application did not name Mrs X as the ‘applicant’ or the ‘agent’ acting for the applicant. The officer told Mrs X the Council could not therefore further discuss the Application with her. This led Mrs X to complain to the Council and, later, the Ombudsman. The name issue arose within 12 months of Mrs X complaining to us. I therefore investigated that part of the complaint about events in 2025 concerning the applicant’s name in the Application. I saw no good reason to exercise my discretion and investigate any other aspect of the Council’s handling and non-determination of the Application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council, including planning information on its website. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Consideration

16. We are not an appeal body and our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault, we cannot question the resulting decision, regardless of how strongly a complainant may disagree with it.
17. Here, on a change of case officer, the Council noticed Mrs X was not the applicant or agent for the Application. The Council ought reasonably have checked Mrs X’s role and interest in the Application when she first made contact. Its failure to do so, and therefore notice she was neither applicant nor agent, was fault. However, this fault did not cause Mrs X injustice as it meant the Council did, at first, communicate with her about the Application.
18. Having noticed she was neither applicant nor agent, the Council raised the point with Mrs X. The Council also referred to the people named as applicant and agent. The business of the named applicant had ceased trading and a liquidator had been appointed. The business of the named agent was trading but under a different name. Mrs X replied to the Council saying communication with the applicant and agent had been difficult but they had said she would be ‘the applicant’ in the Application. Mrs X also said she had provided the fee for the Application. Mrs X said the Council should change the Application to show her as the applicant.
19. The Council further considered the point. This was a proportionate and reasonable step to take given Mrs X’s response. It then told Mrs X it could not change the applicant’s name but she could make her own planning application for the development. Mrs X sought third-party advice and then wrote to the Council saying it had discretion to change an applicant’s name.
20. The Council again considered what Mrs X said and took the added step of seeking its own legal advice. It also tried to contact the Application applicant and agent and their representatives. It received a reply from a representative of the agent. The agent’s representative confirmed its client, the applicant company, had been dissolved and so, as agent, it was no longer involved in the Application. The agent’s representative also gave the Council contact details for a firm it understood was handling the former applicant company’s affairs. Over the following three months the Council tried to get further information about the applicant but without success.
21. Meanwhile, Mrs X chased the Council for information, saying the wait for its decision was stressful. The Council recognised the impact of the wait on Mrs X and explained it needed to ensure any action it took was legally sound. The Council also asked Mrs X for evidence she owned the Application development site. (Mrs X said she saw no need to do this before the Council confirmed if it could change the applicant’s name on the Application.)
22. Mrs X also complained to the Council, asking it to name her as ‘applicant’ for the Application. In response, the Council recognised the time it was taking to resolve the point was frustrating for Mrs X. However, it was not responsible for the conduct of planning applicants and their agents. Neither was it responsible for completion of the Application, which had included a certificate saying Mrs X owned the development site. While its legal advice was that a name change might be possible, it was still considering if and how it could lawfully and robustly act to do so for the Application. Meanwhile, it had suggested Mrs X could address the problem by making her own planning application for the development.
23. About a month later, and four months after first raising the point, the Council wrote to Mrs X saying its name changing enquiries were continuing. The Council also said the name issue was not delaying determination of the Application as Natural England’s concerns were unresolved and a decision on many applications remained ‘on hold’.
24. Meanwhile, Mrs X brought her complaint to us. In responding to our request for information, the Council provided an update. It said, after seeking third party information, it could not conclude the named applicant, rather than the former company, no longer wished to continue with the Application. Mrs X had also not responded to its request for evidence she owned the development site. It had therefore decided that showing Mrs X as ‘applicant’ would not be legally sound. And such a change could not be achieved without risk of challenge by the named applicant or any creditors of the applicant company.
25. It took the Council about seven months to finally decide it would not change the Application to show Mrs X as the applicant. I recognised the Council needed time to try to contact and get information from the named applicant and agent and their representatives. However, I found there was avoidable delay during the seven months, which was fault. The Council also fell below acceptable administrative standards in not directly informing Mrs X of its decision when it wrote to us.
26. However, the Council had taken suitable steps to consider Mrs X’s request to be named as the applicant. The steps included reviewing its position in response to Mrs X’s comments and seeking legal advice. I found no fault in the process followed by the Council to reach its decision. Unfortunately for Mrs X, that decision was to decline to exercise any discretion it had to change the Application and show her as the applicant.
27. I recognised the Council’s decision would be disappointing and frustrating for Mrs X. I considered if the Council’s avoidable delay and failure to directly inform Mrs X of its decision caused her significant personal injustice. I found without the delay and failure to communicate the decision, Mrs X would have found herself in the same position only sooner. And, during those seven months the Council had suggested Mrs X could make her own planning application. (Although I recognised a new application would need Mrs X to pay another application fee.) The Application would also likely have remained undetermined given the Council had yet to address Natural England’s concerns, which meant many applications had not been determined within eight weeks. I therefore found the Council faults I identified did not cause Mrs X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Decision

28. I found fault not causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman