The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to provide pre-application advice to Mrs B on her proposed planning application. However, the Council failed to consider the additional time and trouble she had been put to in pursuing matters, and it took too long to refund the fee as agreed. In recognition of the frustration it has caused Mrs B, the Council will apologise to her for its further delay and pay her an additional £100. The Council will also submit details of any backlog and any appropriate service improvements to the Ombudsman.
The complaint
Mrs B complains that the Council took too long to give pre-application advice on a proposed planning application. The Council agreed to refund Mrs B the £225 fee but it took too long to do this.
Mrs B also complains that the Council delayed in determining her planning application. It agreed an extension with her agent but took too long to confirm the site address and design, failed to consult the neighbours, and took too long to determine the application.
Mrs B says that the Council’s shortcomings caused her distress, uncertainty and frustration. She was put to time and trouble in pursuing these issues with the Council and with the Ombudsman. She also says the Council caused her build to be delayed and there was an increase in the cost of building materials in this time.
What I have investigated I have investigated Mrs B’s complaint about delays in the pre-application advice. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint that the Council took too long to determine her planning application. I have set out my reasons below.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by Mrs B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its correspondence with Mrs B. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I considered the comments of both parties before issuing a final decision.
What I found
What happened The Council has a pre-application advice service. Its policy says that it welcomes and encourages discussion before a developer submits a planning application, and strongly encourages developers to use is formal pre-application process.
Mrs B wanted to submit an application to build a two-storey house. Her planning agent made a formal request for pre-application advice and paid the Council £225. The Council took six weeks to contact the agent, who by this time had twice chased the officer by email. The Council clarified the site address. The Council took a further month to give the requested advice. In this time, the agent had sent a further five emails and left several voicemail messages asking for progress.
Mrs B’s agent then submitted the planning application, and again the Council delayed in determining the application. It initially failed to consult the neighbours, and Mrs B also says the Council required a change to the house design, which could have been requested at the pre-application stage. During the delay Mrs B’s agent discussed the possibility of appealing to the Planning Inspector to decide the application. The Council took just over nine months to decide the planning application.
The Council granted planning permission. Mrs B complained to it about the delays. The Council explained that Mrs B could have used her right to appeal to the Inspector when the Council took too long to determine the application. It agreed however to refund the pre-application advice fee. However, again the Council delayed here and it took from August to December to make the refund.
The Council has explained that the delay in giving pre-application advice was because the Council was in the process of restructuring its service.
Analysis The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to give pre-application advice to Mrs B. This caused her frustration and uncertainty. The Council says the delays were because it was restructuring its planning service. I have taken this into account, but the Ombudsman expects the Council to meet good practice standards, including to provide services in good time.
The Council’s offer to refund the fee was appropriate. However, it did not take into account the time and trouble that Mrs B and her agent (who was charging a professional fee) was put to when it failed to respond to their emails and calls.
In addition, there is further fault by the Council because it took too long to refund the fee.
Agreed action
The Council will show the Ombudsman within one month of the date of this decision that it has: apologised to Mrs B; and paid her an additional £100 in recognition of the time and trouble it put her to.
The Council will also within one month of the date of this decision report to the Ombudsman information about the current waiting time for pre-application advice to include, how long on average this is taking, the number that are taking longer than expected and the date of the oldest outstanding request.
If there are significant delays in the service, the Council should with three months of the date of this decision send the Ombudsman details of how it intends to reduce these.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing Mrs B injustice.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate 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)) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister, and considers appeals about delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission. When the Council took too long to decide Mrs B’s planning application, she had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector and have the application decided by them. Mrs B had an agent to guide her in this process, and there is no good reason why she should not be expected to use her right of appeal. As such I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint that the Council took too long to determine the planning application.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman