Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council acted with fault in its handling of his planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide accurate advice about his planning application for the creation of, and alteration to, rear windows. As a result, he had to apply for a certificate of lawfulness which he says was an unnecessary cost and delayed the work. He wants the Council to refund the cost of the application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s agent submitted a planning application to create or alter front and rear windows in Mr X’s property.
6. A Council planning officer carried out a site visit and informed Mr X at the time, and later in writing, that the current plans would likely be refused permission. Mr X withdrew his application.
7. He then submitted a planning application to alter just the front windows. This planning application was refused by the Council and he appealed to the Planning Inspector. The Inspector refused his appeal. Mr X amended the plans for both the front and rear windows and applied for a certificate of lawfulness under permitted development rights. The Council granted this.

Analysis

8. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. It was ultimately Mr X’s decision on whether to withdraw his application following the planning officer’s pre-planning advice and later to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. We cannot hold the Council responsible for those decisions. Furthermore, Mr X’s application for the certificate included the front windows, which were amended following his lost appeal with the planning inspector. Therefore, it is likely he would have submitted an application in any case which would have incurred the same cost.
9. We will also not investigate Mr X‘s other complaints about the pre-planning advice the Council gave him together with delays in responding to questions. Pre-application advice is given on a without prejudice basis and Mr X could have appealed the rear window designs to the planning inspectorate just as he appealed the front windows. There is no evidence the Council delayed unduly in responding to the agent’s queries.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s substantive complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman