Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-planning application advice as we consider an investigation will not lead to a different outcome. Nor will we investigate his complaint about the way it dealt with his application for a Lawful Development Certificate. It is reasonable to expect him to have exercised his right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Finally, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council issued then withdrew a Community Infrastructure Liability Notice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to provide feedback on a request for pre-application advice and advice on permitted development.
• Refused to accept additional information he provided on an application for a Lawful Development Certificate.
• Refused to accept information he provided when asking for a review of the Council’s decision to issue a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liability notice. Instead only accepting the same information from an agent he engaged.
2. Mr X says these failings caused him stress and financial loss. He wants the Council to:
• Pay him compensation for the cost of engaging a planning agent.
• Pay him compensation for the stress he and his family experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Pre-Planning application advice

6. Mr X applied for pre-planning application advice for an extension to his home. He did not mention an outbuilding on the application.
7. Mr X then asked if permitted development rights had been removed at his property. A planning officer advised him if he wanted formal confirmation on a scheme he must apply for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC).
8. Mr X then asked if a log cabin in the garden would be permitted development. The Council says an officer told Mr X that he would need to apply for an LDC.
9. Mr X says an officer told him they would include the log cabin in the pre-application advice request. However, the Council has no recordings of the telephone calls and there is no written evidence to support this claim. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
10. The Council confirms it provided the pre application advice sought within the expected timeframe.

Lawful Development Certificate

11. Mr X applied for an LDC. After some weeks he provided enough information to enable the Council to validate the application.
12. During the Council’s consideration of the LDC application, Mr X presented revised drawings. The application was subject to two rounds of publicization.
13. The planning officer told Mr X she was considering recommending the application be refused. The Council says she gave Mr X the option of withdrawing the application before a decision was made. Mr X asked to submit more information instead. The planning officer decided not to accept the new information as this would mean yet another round of publicization. The Council refused the application for an LDC.
14. Mr X had a right to appeal against the refusal. There is no fee for appealing and there is not a set deadline. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used this right and appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

CIL Liability Notice

15. Mr X applied for a full planning permission for a “Detached outbuilding for ancillary use in rear garden area as a detached annexe to the main house. Associated landscaping.”
16. The Council approved the application with a condition stating the annexe must not be used as a separate dwelling or as a holiday let. It then issued a CIL Liability Notice to Mr X for £4783.13.
17. Mr X asked the Council to review the notice as he did not believe the building met the CIL criteria. The Council refused to review its decision. Mr X engaged a planning agent.
18. The agent asked the Council to review the decision to issue the notice. They provided information from the Valuation Office about its interpretation of an annexe. They also appealed to the Valuation Office.
19. The Council says the information provided by the agent defined an annexe for CIL purposes, as a single dwelling, i.e., not an annexe in the traditional sense. It says this is not the same as the consideration of an annexe for planning assessment purposes.
20. Because of the information provided by Mr X’s agent, the Council withdrew the CIL Liability Notice.
21. I understand Mr X says the Council should have withdrawn the notice when he challenged it. Instead he had to incur the extra expense for engaging a planning agent. However, the Council confirms the information provided by the agent was not the same as that provided by Mr X. It therefore withdrew the notice when it received relevant information.
22. I understand Mr X believes he provided the same information to the Council as his agent. And therefore he should not have had to incur the extra expense in employing an agent. However, the information I have seen suggests the information which led to the Council’s decision to withdraw the notice had not been previously provided. Therefore I consider the Council withdrew the notice when it had received the relevant information.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• Further investigation into the way the Council dealt with his application for pre-planning application advice will not lead to a different outcome.
• It is reasonable to expect him to have used his right to appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse his LDC application; and
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council deal with his request for a CIL review to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman