Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken by the Council to determine a planning application as the result of an alleged procedural error. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council took over three years to determine a planning application due to an error that led it to wrongly insist that the planning committee must take the decision, rather than a planning officer. She says this led to her organisation incurring significant extra costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council validated Mrs X’s planning application in 2022 and decided it in 2025. Mrs X was acting on behalf of an organisation. It would have been reasonable for her to use the right of appeal to the Planning Inspector against the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she had an alternative remedy available by way of an appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman