Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for planning permission for an existing permitted development, sited on his property. Mr X also complained about how the Council handled the entire planning application and his complaint about it. We have discontinued our investigation. This is because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly advised him to apply for planning permission for an existing permitted development, sited on his property.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council handled the entire planning permission application including:
• delays
• inadequate site survey
• poor communication
• providing unclear guidance and
• providing misleading guidance.
3. Mr X says the Council did not handle his complaint timely and properly.
4. Mr X says the Council’s failings has caused him significant stress, time and trouble leading to a planning application refusal and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received prior to reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The following paragraphs set out key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
9. Mr X erected an outbuilding at the rear of his property. Mr X considered the outbuilding fell under permitted development rules and therefore did not require planning permission.
10. In April 2018, the Council received a complaint regarding the size, location and the effect of Mr X’s outbuilding on a neighbouring property. In September 2018, the Council sent Mr X a letter notifying him of its intention to undertake a site survey of the outbuilding.
11. The Council carried out a site visit, sent Mr X its findings and invited him to apply for a retrospective planning permission, which he did in 2019. The Council refused Mr X’s application; its Decision Notice stated the application was refused due to the impact of the outbuilding on neighbour amenity.
12. Mr X disputed the way the Council conducted its site survey and the validity of the Council’s refusal reason which he said was based on a flawed inspection. In May 2019, Mr X made a complaint to the Council about how it had handled the entire process of his planning permission application. In response, the Council apologised for its delay in responding to Mr X correspondence and reminded Mr X of his right of appeal against its decision. Mr X said the Council gave him different reasons for its refusal on different occasions. He said he did not appeal because he was unsure what refusal reason he needed to appeal against.
13. In July 2019, Mr X employed the services of an independent planning company. He said the company completed a professional site survey and advised him to submit a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) application, which he did, but the Council again refused his application.
14. Mr X appealed against the Council’s CLEUD refusal decision. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) upheld Mr X’s appeal but it did not award Mr X his cost claim against the Council.
15. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X is clear he wishes to complain about the Council’s initial actions before he made the CLEUD application, which he says caused him time, trouble and avoidable costs in relation to the planning permission process.

Back to top

Finding

16. Mr X’s complaints stem from his view that the Council carried out a flawed site survey and wrongly advised him to submit a retrospective planning application for an existing permitted development.
17. But the Council’s view that the outbuilding required planning permission was a matter of professional judgement and interpretation of the law. That the PINS later disagreed with it is not itself evidence of fault.
18. The Council’s letter to Mr X set out its view about the development and Mr X’s options and it was not wrong to do this. Had Mr X felt the development did not require planning permission he could have refused to submit an application and appealed against any enforcement notice it issued. He may also have applied for a CLEUD straight away and appealed against the Council’s refusal to issue a certificate, without first applying for planning permission.
19. Any of these approaches would likely have resulted in some degree of time, trouble and expense but the remedy provided by Parliament takes account only of the cost of dealing with an appeal where a local authority has acted unreasonably. Mr X believed this to be the case here but the PINS disagreed. It reached its decision in full knowledge of Mr X’s contention that the Council did not properly carry out the site survey or take proper measurements of the outbuilding. It also commented that it was not for the Council to produce a detailed statement of its case that the development required planning permission but for Mr X to demonstrate it did not.
20. While Mr X wishes to obtain reimbursement for costs he could not include as part of his application to the PINS, it is not for us to fill gaps in the scope of the remedy provided by Parliament. I do not consider we can achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating this matter further and I have discontinued my investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have discontinued my investigation into this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman