Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council provided misleading/inaccurate pre-application planning advice. He says he incurred costs for a planning application which the Council then refused and has suffered financial loss as a result. He also says the issues have resulted in further delay in completing the works, which has caused him stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Pre-application planning advice is informal and non-binding. It does not therefore guarantee an application for planning permission will be successful, even if the advice is followed to the letter.
7. The Council’s pre-application advice in this case set out actions that Mr X would “ideally” take but advised that Mr X employ a structural engineer to assess the options further. It then listed four possible approaches to the issue as “Techniques such as…” It also suggested Mr X consult an arborist.
8. It is clear the list of techniques suggested by the Council’s planning officer was not definitive and the advice did not offer any guarantees or state that Mr X would be granted planning permission for any of the options listed. In fact, because the works involved were not straightforward the advice stated:

“At present without further information it is not possible to provide specific informed guidance. However:

Works should follow conservation principles and initial starting point should be:

• Minimal intervention
• Maximum retention of historic fabric, features and detailing…”

9. The planning officer’s also said:

“All advice is given in good faith, without prejudice and cannot guarantee the outcome of any subsequent application which will be subject to a period of consultation and public notification and may be decided at a Planning Committee. The local planning authority will only be bound where a formal application is submitted, and a formal decision is issued in writing…”

10. One Mr X received the advice he obtained advice from a structural engineer and an arborist and applied for planning permission for one of the possibilities listed. He has complained now because the Council refused to grant permission and he has therefore had to pursue an alternative option.
11. While I appreciate Mr X’s frustration I do not consider the Council’s pre-application advice amounted to fault. The officer gave Mr X advice to the best of their ability at the time and offered no guarantees the Council would grant planning permission for any of the options listed.
12. The reasons given for not supporting the proposal at the formal application stage were based on further details regarding the option Mr X chose and there was no way the officer could have known about the specifics of what may be involved at the time they gave their advice.
13. The Council’s advice also contained sufficient warnings that Mr X should have been aware there was no guarantee it would approve his application and that his costs were incurred at risk the Council would refuse it.
14. Mr X also complains the Council conducted a site meeting but did not inform him so he could attend. The Council accepts it could have told him about the meeting but says it was under no obligation to do so. In any event we could not say this issue caused Mr X significant injustice.
15. Mr X also references possible delay in the process of dealing with his case but this is a matter for the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman