Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his planning application and the advice it provided. There was no fault in the way the Council provided pre-application planning advice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with his pre-application planning enquiry and the advice it provided. He said it failed to provide the pre-application service he paid for and that it delayed in providing him with advice.
2. He said this resulted in him having to pay for searches that were unnecessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, as well as the information we discussed in a telephone conversation.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019)
• The Council’s Local Planning Document (Adopted July 2018)
• The Council’s Development Advice and Information (15 January 2016)
6. Mr X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council can offer pre-application advice relating to planning and building regulations and there is a charge for using this service.
8. The Council’s pre-application meeting and correspondence service allows you to discuss your proposals with a Council officer. The Council will assess the application and carry out consultations before providing written advice. You can then arrange a meeting with a Council officer or make amendments to the proposals. A final advice letter is then sent. The service costs £210 and will be completed within 45 working days.

What happened

9. Mr X was considering purchasing a listed property on green belt land. Before purchasing, he wanted advice on whether he could get planning permission for an extension and to build a new garage, but he only had a short timeframe in which to do so.
10. Mr X contacted the Council on 25 January 2019 requesting advice on the planning application he was considering. He told the Council he needed the advice straight away and said he was told by the Council that he could make a pre-planning application where he would receive advice on the likely success of a full planning application and that this would be quicker. Mr X paid £210 for this service and opted to include a meeting with a planning officer.
11. Mr X said that he later spoke to the Council to arrange a site meeting on 11 February 2019 with a planning officer and a conservation officer.
12. On 11 February 2019 Mr X met with a conservation officer from the Council at the site he was considering purchasing. A planning officer did not attend. The conservation officer told Mr X that his plan for an extension would be likely to be looked on favourably, but his plan to build a triple garage would not be desirable. Instead Mr X was told he may be able to build a smaller garage. The conservation officer said they would write a report on Mr X’s proposals which would be sent to the planning officer dealing with his application.
13. On 14 February 2019 Mr X contacted the Council by e-mail. He said he thought he would be meeting a planning officer as well as a conservation officer and as such he still did not know if a planning officer would support his plans.
14. On 15 February 2019 the Council e-mailed Mr X. It said a planning officer had not met him on site the previous week because the Council needed to carry out consultation and investigate the planning history before it could give advice. The Council told Mr X its main concerns were the size and location of the triple garage he planned to build. It told Mr X the report had been written but was being signed off by a manager and would be available later that day or early the next week. It said it was happy to discuss the issues raised in its report with Mr X on site or by e-mail. The Council said its comments are an informal opinion and not legally binding.
15. Mr X was under pressure to complete the purchase of the property. On the strength of the advice he received from the conservation officer, Mr X paid approximately £300 for search fees to be carried out before he received the final advice report from the Council.
16. On 21 February the Council wrote to Mr X providing him with pre-planning advice. It told him that an extension to the property would be likely to be viewed favourably. However, because the property was on the green belt, it said his plan to build a triple garage would not be viewed favourably and would be considered inappropriate development under green belt policy. The Council offered Mr X the chance to meet with a planning officer to discuss the advice.
17. On 2 March 2019 Mr X wrote to the Council to complain. He said he was promised a visit from a planning officer and that he paid £210 for a job which was not done. He also complained about delays in the process.
18. The Council provided its stage one complaints response on 7 March 2019. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It told Mr X that, due to the site and nature of his enquiry, it was necessary to get specialist input. It said it provided advice within a reasonable timeframe and within its policy.
19. Mr X remained unhappy and took his complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure on 20 March 2019.
20. On 3 April 2019 the Council provided its stage two response. It upheld its stage one decision and confirmed that it provided the advice Mr X requested, which was an informal opinion, and in line with its policy.
21. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 April 2019 as he wanted to be reimbursed the £210 he paid for a service he said the Council did not provide. He also wanted compensating £300 for the searches he paid for.

Response to enquiries

22. The Council said it provided Mr X with full pre-application advice in line with its policy and all relevant planning considerations were taken into account.
23. It said it was necessary for a conservation officer to visit the site, but a planning officer was able to draw conclusions and provide a report without doing so. The planning officer needed to complete the internal consultation process in order to provide accurate advice.
24. It said its advice was provided within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its policy.
25. It said that the expense incurred by Mr X in obtaining searches was incurred at his own risk.

My findings

26. Mr X thought that he was due to have a meeting with a planning officer on site before he received pre-application advice. The planning officer needed to carry out consultation before providing advice. A planning officer meeting with Mr X before the consultation process was complete would not have resulted in reliable advice being provided. The Council provided full pre-application advice. It offered to meet Mr X to discuss its advice and acted in line with its policy. There was no fault.
27. Mr X did not receive the advice as quickly as he wanted. The Council accelerated the consultation process and provided advice within 28 days of Mr X’s first contact. This was reasonable in the circumstances and within the Council’s policy. There was no fault.
28. Mr X paid for property searches on the strength of the conservation officer’s on-site opinion. Pre-application advice is designed to be informal and is non-binding. Mr X took the decision to pay for the search fees before receiving full pre-application advice and did so at his own risk. There was no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council was not at fault in the way it provided pre-application planning advice. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman