Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s request for pre-application planning advice. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant also has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the pre-application planning advice he received from the Council. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper processes and gave him incorrect advice. Mr X says he acted on the Council’s advice and submitted a planning application but permission for the development was refused. Mr X says he incurred significant costs submitting the application which could have been avoided.

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), as amended)
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. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accepts the pre-application advice it provided suggested the development site would be in a sustainable location. But it said matters of sustainability are subjective and when the case officer considered the application, they decided the site was not sustainable for residential development.
8. Mr X says he has incurred significant costs because he relied on the advice he was given by the Council. But councils are not bound by the pre-application advice they provide and there are no guarantees that a subsequent planning application will be successful. This is made clear in the Council’s pre-application advice response.
9. Mr X can appeal to the Planning Inspector if he disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse his application. I consider it would be reasonable for Mr X to use his right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone has a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.
10. Mr X has complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Mr X also has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman