Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about delays in the Council considering a planning application and later refusing it. X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to have used it.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council were delayed in considering his planning application and went on to refuse it. X said the Council should have identified the reason for refusal earlier in the application process.
2. X also complained the Council did not communicate effectively with him about the application and delayed responding to his complaint.
3. X said this caused stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. X submitted a planning application, and the Council validated it in July 2025.
10. X complained the Council did not consider his application within statutory timeframes and later refused the application. X said the Council should have identified the reason for refusal at the validation stage.
11. 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).
12. X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector about the delays, and about the Council’s subsequent refusal of his application. It would have been reasonable to expect X to have used this right, because the Planning Inspector has powers to overturn a Council’s planning decision if it sees necessary.
13. As outlined in paragraph four, we cannot usually investigate where someone can appeal to a government minister about the same issue. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures or poor communication if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, we will not investigate X’s complaint about these issues.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to have used it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman