Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Dr B has complained about the pre-application advice they received from the Council. Dr B says they were told they did not need planning permission to carry out a development at their home. Dr B has since discovered the advice was incorrect and they have incurred significant costs as a result.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Dr B and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Dr B has complained about the advice they received from the Council when they spoke to an officer on the phone. Dr B says the Council should pay compensation for the unnecessary costs incurred because of the incorrect advice. The Council has apologised for the advice given to Dr B and said it will ensure more robust checks are carried out in future. It has offered Dr B £300 for the inconvenience, time and distress suffered.
7. Dr B says the amount the Council has offered is significantly less than the costs incurred because of the Council’s advice. However, the advice provided to Dr B would have been given informally and based on the information available at the time. Councils are not bound by the advice provided and pre-application advice does not provide a guarantee the completed development will not need planning permission or that any subsequent applications will be approved. Any development is carried out at the person’s own risk and the only way to get a definitive view regarding the need for planning permission would be to apply for a lawful development certificate.
8. Dr B chose to remove the unauthorised development. But they could have instead applied for retrospective planning permission to regularise the situation. Dr B would have had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector if the retrospective application was refused.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for the complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman