Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s pre-planning application advice. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his application for pre-planning application advice. He says the assessment overlooked relevant considerations, contained errors and the advice is wrong.

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 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Many councils offer a range of pre-application planning advice services depending on the type, scale and complexity of the proposed development. A council’s website will usually set out the services it offers and the charges that apply. Pre-application advice does not bind a council and any planning application submitted will be considered on its merits. Councils do not act as agents or consultants for applicants. They will respond to advise whether planning permission is likely to be granted.
6. In this case, Mr X applied and paid for pre-application advice on a proposal to build a new house in the grounds of his property. He is unhappy with the response he received from the Council. He says the advice was poor and lacked specific direction. However, the pre-application advice letter set out:
• the details of the proposal
• the relevant local and national planning policies
• the site history
• the assessment of the proposal
• the reasons why the Council would not support the proposal.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council. He has asked that we review the development which he says contradicts the advice given. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Nor can we provide planning advice. Our role is primarily to look at the way the Council carries out its administrative functions and our focus lies on the way it makes its decisions. Without fault in its processes, we cannot question the merits of its decisions.
8. In this case, Mr X applied for pre-planning application advice. The Council has considered his proposal. It has explained it cannot support his proposal and explained the reasons for this.
9. If Mr X wants to provide more information or change the proposal the Council is entitled to require him to put in a new application and pay a fee. Alternatively, he could test the advice given and the proposal by putting in a planning application. If the Council refuses a planning application, Mr X could appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his pre-planning application advice application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman