Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an administrative failure in the planning application process. We do not consider the applicant suffered a significant personal justify because of any administrative fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his client. He says the Council failed to follow the application process correctly. He wants the Council to change its process and refund the application fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains the Council failed to validate his client’s prior approval application. Instead he says it took the fee and refused the application.
8. The process for dealing with an application for prior approval is the Local Planning Authority (LPA) who will:
• Register the application and fee;
• Validate the application;
• Consult with neighbours during the determination period; and
• Issue the decision.
9. If the Council fails to validate the application within eight weeks, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
10. In this case, the application was refused because the application did not follow Part 1 Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. In other words, even if it had validated the application, it would still have been refused. The applicant has a right of appeal against the refusal.
11. In practice the Council should have validated the application and could then immediately sent its decision to refuse it. However, both the validation and prior approval decision are appealable to the Planning Inspector. So even if there were an error in the processing, the outcome would have been the same – a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector.
12. Mr X says he is not concerned with the decision itself. He is concerned only whether there is administrative failure. However, as there is a right of appeal against a failure to validate the application and a decision to refuse the application, I do not consider the applicant suffered a significant failure because of an administrative failure alone to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider his client has suffered a significant personal injustice because of an administrative failure alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman