Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the pre-application advice the Council gave the complainant. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault or suggest a further remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, is unhappy with the way the Council provided him with pre-application planning advice. He says it has been unprofessional, failed to answer his queries, engage in on-site discussion or help determine his options.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the Council has already proposed satisfactory action in response to the complaint

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & 24A(7), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read what Mr X has told us, and his correspondence with the Council, about his complaint. I also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

5. Information about the Council’s pre-application advice service is published on its website. This says pre-application advice helps to:

• Identify and address any potential problems with the application and identify any additional and specialist advice needed.
• Stop the submission of an invalid application.

6. It also sets out the options and fees for site meetings and/or written advice. Once a request has been validated, a case officer should provide written advice within 20 working days.

What happened

7. Mr X’s application for planning permission to build an annexe to his home on the site of an old barn was rejected in August 2018. A further application was rejected in March 2019. The Council had given him pre-application advice before these applications, in 2017 and 2018 .
8. Following the rejection of his application in March 2019, Mr X asked the Council for further pre-application written advice. The Council’s target date for providing the advice was 25 July 2019. It issued the written advice in mid-October 2019.
9. Mr X was not satisfied with the advice. He sent his comments to the Council. In reply it said it had reviewed the advice and found no issue with its consistency or relevance. It accepted the advice had been provided outside its target timescale and offered to refund £50 of the pre-application advice fee.

Assessment

10. The 12-month time restriction detailed in paragraph 3 above appears to apply to any parts of Mr X’s complaint about the 2017 and 2018 pre-application advice. This is because Mr X contacted us more than 12 months after this advice was given, and I see no good reason why he could not have contacted us sooner.
11. Mr X says his complaint is about the cumulative effect of the way the Council has dealt with him over the period from 2017 to October 2019. But this is not a good reason why he could not have contacted us sooner. His planning applications, made after he had received the earlier pre-application advice, were refused in 2018 and early 2019 but he did not make any complaint about the advice at that point.
12. Regarding the advice provided in October 2019, I understand that on this occasion Mr X applied only for written advice, so there was no requirement for the Council to have a meeting. And it is not part of the Council’s role to act as Mr X’s planning agent or consultant, so it cannot design an acceptable proposal for him.
13. The Council was entitled to provide its own professional planning judgement on Mr X’s third proposal, taking into account current planning policies. Senior planning officers also reviewed the pre-application advice when responding to the complaint, and concluded it was sound.
14. Mr X says we should independently assess the factual accuracy of, and the reference to regulations in, the advice. But this is not something we can do. Our role is to investigate complaints where we decide we can and should do so, not to provide independent planning advice to complainants. Here, the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s judgement unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was reached. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the proposal to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this part of the complaint further.
15. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view, but the way to test this difference of opinion is to make a planning application and, if necessary, appeal against any refusal of permission.
16. The Council has acknowledged its delay in providing the advice. I would say its offer to refund £50 of the advice fee, is a satisfactory way to address this fault, so we do not propose to pursue the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman