Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s advice about a planning matter. It is unlikely we could get to the bottom of exactly what the Council’s planning officer said to Mr X more than 18 months ago or that we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly advise him about his planning proposal. He has spent almost £100,000 on developing his property and the Council has told him the work is unauthorised and he must either apply for planning permission which he is unlikely to receive or await an enforcement notice.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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))
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 reviewed Mr X’s complaints and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and discussed it with him.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) allows certain development without the need for planning permission. This is known as ‘permitted development’
7. Mr X owns a property with agricultural land and outbuildings. He wanted to convert one of the outbuildings to provide residential accommodation and he discussed his proposal with the Council. He says the Council told him to apply for planning permission although he believed it was permitted development and did not require permission.
8. Mr X submitted a planning application but the Council refused it; Mr X did not appeal against this decision. This was because he says the planning officer told him that by making minor modifications the proposal would be permitted development.
9. The Council’s planning enforcement officer visited Mr X’s property some nine months after Mr X started work on the development, and shortly before he had completed it. They confirmed the work was unauthorised and that it was not permitted development as he had not sought the Council’s ‘prior approval’ before starting it. Mr X then complained to the Council.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X says the planning officer incorrectly advised him about his application and about permitted development but the Council disputes this. It is unlikely we could get to the bottom of exactly what Mr X asked or what the officer advised more than 18 months after the conversation took place and although it is clear Mr X understood that he could proceed with his proposal as permitted development this does not show the Council was at fault.
11. Mr X appears to have been aware of the relevant permitted development class and the legislation clearly explains the developer must apply to the Council, as the local planning authority, for a determination as to whether prior approval is required. Mr X did not comply with this requirement but the Council has explained that regardless of this point it does not amount to permitted development. It does not separately consider the development acceptable in planning terms and it would not therefore grant planning permission for it. Mr X does not accept the Council’s view but it is not for us to say it is wrong.
12. The Council has explained that Mr X may apply for retrospective planning permission and if he believes it meets the requirements for permitted development he may argue this in support of his application. If the Council refuses Mr X’s application he may appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Mr X may also appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against any enforcement notice issued by the Council.
13. The Ombudsman cannot say the Council must grant permission or otherwise confirm Mr X’s work amounts to permitted development so that he may keep it. It is therefore unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation into his complaint or that we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman