Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Z. He complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a plot of land. Mr X said Mr Z paid for assessments and professional services he did not need because the Council was not progressing the application. There was fault in the way the Council delayed making its decision on the planning application and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr Z, caused him uncertainty and raised his expectations. The Council agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of Mr Z. He complained about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a plot of land. Mr X said Mr Z paid for assessments and professional services he did not need because the Council was not progressing the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. 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(i), as amended)
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint since September 2024, 12 months before Mr X approached the Ombudsman. I reference matters before this date for context in this matter.
9. I have not investigated any matter before this date. Mr X or Mr Z were not an interested party before the purchase of the land. Any concerns before September 2024 would be a late complaint to the Ombudsman and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider those parts of it for investigation now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

13. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
14. Material planning considerations may include:

• Access to the highway;
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.

15. Material planning considerations do not include:

• Views from a property;
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.

16. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
17. Councils delegate most planning decisions to their officers. The types of decisions delegated to officers are normally set out in a council’s constitution or scheme of delegation.
18. Most planning applications should be decided within eight weeks, although the time limit is 13 weeks for major applications. If the planning application has not been decided by the end of this period, and an extension has not been agreed in writing, the applicant can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government).
19. The purpose of the case officer’s report is not only help the council decide on the application. It is also to demonstrate the decisions were properly made and due process followed. Without an adequate report, we cannot know whether the council took proper account of the key material planning considerations or whether judgements were affected by irrelevant matters.
20. However, the courts have made it clear that case officer reports:

• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed on the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.

21. The law on self-build housebuilding confirms owners would not have to pay any Community Infrastructure Levy if they own and occupy the property for a minimum of three years after the work is completed.
22. The Council complaint policy says it would acknowledge and respond to a stage one complaint within 15 working days. The policy says it would acknowledge and respond to a stage two complaint within 25 working days.

What happened

23. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
24. The previous landowner submitted a planning application to build a self-build property on the land in November 2020. The Council accepted the application.
25. Following ongoing amendments, the Council considered the application at a planning subcommittee meeting in September 2022. Neighbouring property owners raised concerns about the accuracy of the application and designs. The Council did not issue a decision.
26. The Council continued to engage with the previous owner, and the agent. The Council repeatedly advised the agent and the owner to withdraw the application and resubmit a new application with updated documents.
27. Mr Z bought the land in mid-2024. Mr Z continued to use the same agent. The agent put in new plans in July 2024.
28. The Council sought legal advice on changing the name on the original application. The legal advice confirmed the Council could change the name on the original application. This advice did not consider the self-build consideration.
29. The Council asked for a financial viability assessment for the application. The agent sent the viability assessment in November 2024. The Council told the agent the application was wrong. The Council repeated its advice to withdraw the application and submit an accurate application.
30. In December 2024, the Council again advised the agent to withdraw the application. It said if the agent did not withdraw the application, it may consider withdrawing the application.
31. The agent disagreed with the Council decision in January 2025. The Council repeated the agent should withdraw the application.
32. The agent complained in February 2025. The agent asked the Council to make a decision on the application.
33. The Council rejected the complaint in March 2025, stating it was a service request.
34. The Council told the agent, it would allow Mr Z to continue with the application. The Council confirmed it required Mr Z to pay a fee of over £3,000 for the Council to approve the financial viability assessment. Mr Z paid the fee.
35. The Council considered the financial viability assessment in May 2025. It told Mr Z he would need to pay a £50,000 Community Infrastructure Levy contribution. The agent challenged this assessment in June 2025. The agent continued to chase the Council.
36. Mr Z complained about the delays in July 2025. The Council acknowledged the complaint.
37. The agent continued to chase the Council.
38. The Council responded to the complaint in September 2025. The Council said the application was for a self-build, but this was not accurate when Mr Z bought the property. The Council said Mr Z needed to submit a new application. The Council said it would not consider the complaint because Mr Z could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
39. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to issue its decision and acknowledge the harm it caused.
40. The Council refused the application in March 2026. It said the application was for a self-build but the owner then sold the property, so it was not a self-build.
41. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it sought legal advice on if it could change the applicant on the application. It confirmed it did not consider the self-build element. The Council stated it repeatedly asked the agent to withdraw the application because it was for a self-build, and this was no longer accurate when Mr Z purchased the land.

My findings

Planning

42. Mr X stated Mr Z bought the property with planning permission. The agent repeatedly stated the Council granted permission in 2022 and Mr Z purchased the land on this basis. The land did not have planning permission when Mr Z purchased it. Any concerns about this are before I am considering and would be a matter of legal conveyancing concerns when Mr Z bought the land.
43. The agent could have approached the Planning Inspectorate at any time after 13 weeks to appeal for non-determination. However, this is before Mr Z bought the land. I have only considered this case from September 2024.
44. When Mr Z purchased the land, this was a fundamental change in the application. The application was no longer a self-build project for the original applicant, as they sold the property. The Council told the agent to withdraw the application and submit an updated, accurate application seven times throughout this application. The agent decided not to follow this advice. The Council should have issued its decision to refuse the application. It had opportunities to do this throughout the application or when Mr Z bought the land. The Council delayed issuing its decision. This is fault. This frustrated Mr Z and raised his expectations.
45. The Council sought advice on changing the name on the application, but this advice did not consider the self-build element of the application. The Council then issued incorrect advice, allowing the application to change to Mr Z’s name, without considering the other parts of the application. The Council accepted this error. However, the fundamental issue remained. The application could not progress, because of the fundamental change. Since this incorrect advice, the Council charged Mr Z to consider a Financial Viability Assessment.
46. However, Mr Z wanted to continue with the application. If the Council had issued its decision in a reasonable timescale, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Z would have continued with a new application, requiring the payment for the Financial Viability Assessment. I consider Mr Z would have continued with the application because the agent repeatedly did not withdraw the application and Mr Z paid to progress the application. If Mr Z chooses not to progress the application at this stage, it is only because of the Community Infrastructure Levy contributions, but this was not available until the assessment. Mr Z would have had to pay for the assessment for any updated application, and the evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities, he would have continued with the application if the Council acted without fault. Although there was fault by the Council, giving wrong advice and not issuing a decision, I do not consider the fault caused a financial impact.

Complaint handling

47. The Council decided to reject the agents February 2025 complaint, because it was a service request. The Council is entitled to make this decision as the communication asked the Council to make a decision. The Council was not at fault.
48. The Council said it would not consider the delays in its complaint process because Mr Z had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr Z was not the original applicant, so he did not have this right of appeal. It is reasonable for the Council to have considered the complaint.
49. The Council policy says it should respond to a stage one complaint within 15 working days. The Council acknowledged the July 2025 complaint the same day Mr Z submitted it. The Council responded by email 58 working days later, a 43 working day delay. The email is not a complaint response, nor does it offer an escalation to stage two, as per the policy. This is fault, frustrating Mr Z.

Back to top

Action

50. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr Z by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr Z for the distress, uncertainty and raising his expectations by allowing the application to continue, when it would not be acceptable, and for poor complaint handling. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr Z.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman