Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. It is unlikely we could say Mr X’s wasted time and costs stem from any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s planning officer encouraged him to submit a planning application which the Council then refused. He says this has cost him thousands of pounds and a lot of time.

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.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X applied to the Council for planning permission several years ago. The Council refused the application and Mr X says he was going to leave it there. But the planning officer invited Mr X to a meeting to discuss the reasons for refusal and suggested ways he could overcome them. This included re-designing the proposal to reduce the impact on neighbours, reducing the size and scale of the extension and obtaining a new bat survey.
7. Mr X amended his plans and submitted a new planning application in 2017. The Council assessed the proposal but decided it was still not acceptable. It was satisfied it would not cause undue harm to neighbours, that the design of the extension was acceptable and the new bat survey was adequate. But it felt there were other issues with the proposal so refused Mr X’s application. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision but the planning inspector dismissed his appeal.
8. Mr X complains about the planning officer’s advice between the refusal of his initial application and submission of his revised proposal. He suggests the planning officer misled him and says he relied on the advice in pursuing a second application.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s planning officer invited Mr X to discuss the reasons for refusing his initial application and how to overcome them. Mr X attended the meeting, took account of the planning officer’s advice and re-submitted his application; this was his choice. If he did not want to apply again he did not have to.
10. Pre-application advice is informal and non-binding; it does not amount to a guarantee that any application will be approved. The planning officer advised Mr X in good faith and on the basis of their judgement of what may be acceptable. Mr X suggests the officer’s advice was flawed as the Council refused his application, but we could not reach this view or say the advice directly resulted in his wasted time and costs. We also cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s revised planning application as Mr X has appealed against its decision to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could attribute Mr X’s claimed injustice to the fault he alleges by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman