Summary: Mr X complained about the Council charging his client for a new application following its refusal of a permitted development application. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X submitted an application on behalf of his client to the Council’s planning authority. The Council subsequently refused the application because the plans showed elements which would not comply as permitted development. Mr X says this was due to a drafting error and the Council should have informed him of any issues it was uncertain of to give him a chance to amend it. Instead, his client had to pay a further application fee of £96.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is a planning agent and he submitted an application for permitted development approval for an extension on a property. The plans included drawings which showed an existing extension and the development added to it. The Council refused the application because it did not meet he permitted development requirements.
5. Mr X says the plans contained a drafting error and if the Council had contacted him to discuss the matter he could have had an opportunity to correct the anomaly and make the application compliant. Instead, the refusal meant that he had to submit a new application and his client had to pay a fee of £96. He wants the Council to transfer the fee from the previous application as a gesture of goodwill.
6. The Council says it does not contact applicants as a matter of course and the error was not obvious as such when the plans were considered. The Council has to process the application in 42 days, and it says due to the pandemic its staff had greater pressure to process applications working remotely. It does not accept that the error was due to its own procedures and the new application requires further work and consultation so the fees cannot be waived.
7. Mr X submitted the plans and the Council assessed them in good faith. The onus is on the applicant to ensure that the application correctly reflected works to be undertaken. If there has been no flaw in the process through which a decision has been taken the Ombudsman has no power to challenge the merits of the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman