Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning advice the Council gave to the complainant. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the planning advice he was given by the Council. Mr X says he was incorrectly told he needed to apply for a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD) to change the use of a building. However, the application was refused, and Mr X was told he needed to make a full planning application. Mr X says he incurred additional costs because of the incorrect advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector if he disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse his CLOPUD application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal, and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had appeal rights.
8. Mr X says the Council gave him incorrect advice which led to him having to pay a second planning fee and additional council tax payments. However, councils are not bound by the pre-application advice they provide, and the advice provided by the case officer would have been informal and based on the information available.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman