Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the pre-planning application provided by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide fair, consistent and constructive pre-planning application advice.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained the Council’s advice:
• Failed to fully consider the site status as previously developed land
• Failed to properly weigh the self-build housing shortfall
• Dismissed sustainable developments and accessibility improvements; and
• Is not consistent with decisions on other similar proposals.

He also complains the Council requires him to make a new application for pre-application advice if he wants to provide a new or amended proposal.

6. The Council’s pre-application advice:
• Acknowledges the site is previously developed land.
• Gives limited weight to the proposal for a single self-build home against the self-build housing shortfall; and
• Details the sustainability and accessibility issues affecting the site.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council also confirms each planning proposal is assessed on its individual merits.
8. The Council’s website confirms a level three application for pre-planning application advice includes:
• a desktop assessment
• full planning history for the site
• consideration of relevant policies
• any site constraints
• officer opinion on proposal
• guideline for validation requirements
• site visit by officer (at their discretion)
• speaking with internal specialists; and
• a meeting with case officer.
9. From the information I have the Council’s response to Mr X included all the above.
10. 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 the required fee.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his application for pre-planning application advice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman