Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s planning application. This is because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse the application to the Planning Inspectorate so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says he submitted a planning application based on favourable pre-application advice he received from the Council which subsequently refused his application. He says it should refund his costs and some of the planning fee because of its contradictory pre-application advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister and considers appeals, including those against a decision to refuse planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to his complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr X’s complaint. He received non-binding pre-application planning advice from the Council and submitted his application which it then refused. Mr X has now appealed against this decision to the Planning Inspector which places the complaint outside our jurisdiction and it cannot be investigated.
8. Moreover, pre-application advice does not bind councils, as the Council says on its website, and any planning application then submitted must be considered on its merits. The Council’s advice was that the development was acceptable in principle only, with a number of matters identified that would need to be addressed in more detail via the planning application.
9. The Council has acknowledged that it did not alert Mr X to the need for a Coal Mining Risk Assessment but this would have been all that it would have said and no consultation with the Coal Authority would have taken place at this stage.
10. The Council has also acknowledged that it quoted the wrong planning fee to Mr X. It explained fees are set nationally but that in mitigation for its error it offered a further free pre-application consultation and the opportunity to resubmit free of charge a second application for a development of similar character and description. The Council has also explained that it would be open to Mr X to make a claim for costs against the Council as part of his appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X has appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse the application to the Planning Inspectorate so placing the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman