Bristol City Council (23 006 014)
Category : Planning > Planning applications
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 21 Sep 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Community Infrastructure Levy charges made by the Council. This is because it would have been reasonable for the complainant to have used his right to appeal to the Valuation Office Agency.
The complaint
- Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to charge him a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Mr X says the Council is requesting he pay the CIL even though the building should be exempt.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- A CIL is a planning charge that allows local authorities to deliver infrastructure to support and develop the area. Most development which creates net added floorspace of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new home, will be liable to pay CIL. However, some development will be exempt or eligible for relief.
- The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) deals with appeals against CIL charges. This includes appeals about exemptions for self-build properties and the Council’s calculation of the chargeable amount.
- The liability notice issued to Mr X would have detailed his right to appeal, and I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used this right of appeal.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to have used his right to appeal to the Valuation Office Agency.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman