Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning advice as there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there was a right of appeal to a Planning Inspector for any complaint about delay or the decision itself.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably delayed dealing with his planning application and misled him about the prospects of success which caused him significant extra costs in pursing the planning application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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), as amended)
3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says that he sought pre planning application advice from the Council in 2016 onwards about developing land he owned. He says that the Council advised him that a planning application would be successful. He says that the planning application took too long to determine and was unreasonably refused.
7. Mr X says that the Council should have pointed out at the start that the land was in a flood zone and could not succeed. The Council says that Mr X was aware of this from the start and had worked with the Council to overcome this issue. The Council says that such development was not impossible (and a Planning Inspector could take a different view) but it remains of the view that the plans as submitted were unacceptable. It says that the Environment Agency objected to the planning application on this basis.
8. Mr X had a right of appeal against the Council’s non determination of his planning application to a Planning Inspector. The Planning Inspector is an independent, expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. I therefore consider that it would be reasonable to pursue an appeal in this case. Further, any disagreement with the merits of the Council’s final decision on the planning application could have been appealed to a Planning Inspector and I see no reason why such an appeal could not have been made in this case.
9. Pre-planning application advice can not be assumed to guarantee the success or otherwise of a future planning application. I am satisfied that there is evidence that the Council raised concerns at that point as to the effect the flood zone would have on the planning application and Mr X was aware of this matter at that point. I cannot conclude therefore that the advice given was so flawed as to encourage a planning application that could not succeed.
10. In the absence of fault, the Ombudsman would not question the advice itself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman