Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s record keeping in relation to pre-application planning advice it gave to a developer. This is because the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council has failed to keep proper records for pre-application advice meetings it had with a developer. Mr X says the proposed development will have a significant impact on him and the surrounding area and is concerned it is not in line with planning policy.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Councils usually offer a range of pre-application advice services. The type of advice will normally depend on the development proposed. Pre-application advice does not bind the Council and any planning application submitted must be considered on its merits, taking account of the relevant policies and representations received from statutory consultees and members of the public.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application for a development near Mr X’s home. Mr X was concerned the proposal did not comply with the Council’s policy which says the site is not suitable for residential and retail development. Mr X made a Freedom of Information request to the Council asking for details about the pre-application advice meetings held between the Council and the developer.
6. The Council responded to Mr X’s request and provided him with confirmation of who attended the meetings and the relevant dates. Mr X complained to the Council about the lack of minutes or notes from the meetings and said it had a responsibility to act with transparency and document its actions and decisions.

Assessment

7. I will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s record keeping in relation to pre-application advice meetings it had with a developer. This is because Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice by the alleged fault.
8. The Council says it is for the individual officer to decide if and how meetings are recorded. It says it is only required to take formal minutes or notes if the meeting is held in accordance with local government legislation. While the Council may not have needed to take full minutes for the pre-application advice meetings, I would usually expect there to be some written account when formal advice is given.
9. However, I cannot say Mr X has been caused any significant personal injustice by the matter. I understand Mr X says he is concerned about the impact the development will have. But the planning application for the development has not yet been determined and regardless of the advice given to the developer, or how details of the meetings were recorded, the Council will still need to consider the material planning matters to decide if the proposal is acceptable. This will include compliance with the relevant policies and the objections raised by Mr X and other members of the public.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has not been caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman