Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning matter. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application and if Mr X disagrees with this it would be reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council gave him misleading pre-application planning advice and unfairly refused his application for planning permission.

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’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X asked the Council for pre-application planning advice in 2023. He says, and the Council confirms, that it told him it did not support his proposal and would likely not grant planning permission for it. However Mr X disagreed with the advice so he applied anyway. The Council refused Mr X’s application in 2024 and Mr X says he intends to appeal against its decision.
8. Mr X complained because he felt the pre-planning meeting was flawed and misleading. He says this delayed the application process and he wants the Council to refund the £98 fee and reimburse him the £328 he paid for his planning application. He also wants the Council to pay him compensation for his time in pursuing the matter.
9. But there is simply no basis for such a recommendation. It was Mr X’s choice to apply for planning permission against the pre-application advice he received and the injustice he claims stems from the Council’s decision to refuse his application. If Mr X disputes this it would be reasonable for him to appeal.
10. Mr X says the Council told him verbally in response to his Stage 1 complaint that it would grant him planning permission if he reapplied but he has no evidence of this agreement and he has not in any event tested it. The Council’s website shows no further planning applications from Mr X and he does not therefore know whether the Council would approve his application if he reapplied.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the Council’s decision to refuse his planning application and if he disagrees with the decision it would be reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman