Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s application for a Lawful Development Certificate and the pre-application planning advice she received. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s planning decision. It is unlikely we would find fault in relation to the complainant’s concerns about the Council’s pre-application advice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her applications for Lawful Development Certificates and the pre-application planning advice she received. Mrs X says she has incurred additional costs because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X has raised concerns about her pre-application planning advice request in 2016 and the application for a Lawful Development Certificate she made a few years after this. However, Mrs X previously complained about these issues and the Ombudsman considered these matters as part of a previous case. I will not consider these issues again as part of this complaint.
9. I have considered Mrs X’s concerns about her more recent application for a Lawful Development Certificate. However, Mrs X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if she did not agree with the Council’s decision to refuse her application. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have used her appeal right and the Ombudsman will not usually investigate a complaint when someone had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
10. Mrs X has also complained about the advice she received from the Council before she made her application. She says she was encouraged to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate, but the Council should have known the application would not be successful.
11. Mrs X did not apply for pre-application planning advice before making her most recent application. Although I do not know what was discussed before she submitted the application, any advice provided would have been informal. Furthermore, Mrs X was aware when she withdrew her previous application that a full planning application would likely be needed for the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector if she disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse her Lawful Development Certificate application. We are unlikely to find fault by the Council in relation to its pre-application advice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman