Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the planning advice service provided by the Council. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the pre-application advice the Council provided, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken in respect of the refund of fees.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to properly handle his requests for advice relating to the development of his property. In particular, Mr X says the Council:
• Gave incorrect advice on the process for obtaining preliminary information about his proposed vehicle crossover/driveway works.
• Treated him unfairly because it raised objections in the pre-application advice it provided, but has approved similar developments in the locality. He thinks this is because the Council takes ‘back-handers’ and only approves proposals from favoured agents/architects.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the issues raised in the complaint, or
• we are satisfied with the actions a Council has already taken or proposes to take in response to a complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included some of their correspondence, the May 2021 pre-application advice, and an explanation of the refunds the Council has made.
4. I also considered our Assessment Code, information about the Council’s vehicle crossing/dropped-kerb guidance and policy on its website, and information about its pre-application advice service.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I understand Mr X complained he paid an initial fee of £70 for preliminary information about his vehicle crossover proposals, but says he was later told he could receive the same input as part of his other pre-application advice request for extensions/works to his home, and that he should receive a refund.
6. Although the Council was unable to verify what Mr X had been told during the telephone conversation about the £70 fee, it agreed to provide a refund as it appeared he may have been misinformed. I consider this to be a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not pursue it further.
7. I appreciate Mr X strongly disagrees with the pre-application advice he received about the proposed works to his property, and thinks he provided sufficient detail to enable a full and favourable assessment to be made. But the planning officer was entitled to give her professional opinion on the information Mr X submitted, having sought comments from the Heritage and Highways departments, even if Mr X disagrees with the feedback he received. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s pre-application advice response to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation.
8. I also understand the Council has refunded the £120 Mr X paid for the pre‑application advice. Again, I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken in respect of this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman would not pursue it further for this reason too.
9. Furthermore, if Mr X thinks his proposals are acceptable, then it is open to him to test this by submitting a planning application to the Council. If the Council refuses the application or grants it with conditions Mr X does not agree with, he could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectorate would consider the application afresh, independent of the Council’s own planning decision or any pre‑application views.
10. Finally, if Mr X thinks he has evidence of corruption in the Council’s Planning department, then that would be a matter for the Police.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the pre-application advice he received, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman