Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pre-application advice given to Mr X and Mr Y. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainants complain the pre-application advice given to them by the Council led them to believe the access arrangements for their proposed development were satisfactory but when they submitted a formal application it changed its mind and decided the access was not acceptable. They say the Council should refund their costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants’ representative and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Pre-application advice received from the Council indicated that while the proposed highway access arrangements for Mr X’s and Mr Y’s proposed development were tight, they were just about acceptable. When the complainants submitted their planning application the Council refused it on three grounds, one of which related to unacceptable access arrangements.
7. In response to their complaint about its change of mind, the Council explained there was a difference between the pre-application proposal and the planning application proposal so that the sight lines for the access no longer complied with the relevant regulations. It highlighted the differences between the detail provided during the two processes and as it concluded it had properly dealt with the matter, it refused the complainants request for a refund and pointed out that pre-application advice is not binding on a council.
8. The information provided at pre-application stage and planning application stage was different. The complainants’ representative states the information was “similar” but this does not mean it was identical. The Council came to a view at the pre-application stage based on the information it had. That it changed its mind on the acceptability of the access arrangements when the planning application was submitted with different, more detailed information is not evidence of fault.
9. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions taken by councils with which complainants do not agree. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information and there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in its handling of this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s and Mr Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman