Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning advice the Council provided. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant. The complainant also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about the pre-application planning advice she received from the Council. Ms X says she relied on the advice she received and has incurred additional costs and suffered stress as a result.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse her planning application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have used her right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
8. Ms X has complained about the pre-application advice she received from the Council. Ms X says the case officer told her she would likely be granted permission to demolish the existing dwelling at the property and replace it with a new residential building. However, her planning application was refused as the Council said the existing property had been abandoned. The Council accepts the advice given to Ms X did not meet its usual standards. There was a long delay before it provided the written advice, and it said it was unfortunate an informal view was provided without completing a site visit. It says officers will be given training. It also offered to refund half of the planning advice fee Ms X paid.
9. I consider this a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this or achieve anything more for Ms X. Councils are also not bound by the planning advice they provide, and any advice would have been given based on the information available at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Ms X. Ms X also had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman