Summary: Mr X said the Council gave him incomplete information in its pre-planning advice. He said this meant he paid for a planning application he would not have chosen to go ahead with, and it wasted his time. We find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the pre-planning application advice he got from the Council. He said he was not told the full extent of the additional information that would be required, and he incurred significant costs.
2. Mr X said if the Council had given him the right information to start with, he would not have gone ahead with a planning application, so the Council wasted his time. He said his house floods and he cannot get house insurance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mr X complained to us in November 2024 about the pre-application advice the Council gave him in April 2023.
8. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. In this case, Mr X did not find out about the advice the Council should have given in its pre-planning advice until after he applied for full planning permission in December 2023.
9. Mr X could not have known about the possible fault at the time the Council issued its pre-application advice. Therefore we consider there are good reasons to exercise discretion and investigate the Council’s pre-application advice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
11. I considered the relevant guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. Councils can give advice to applicants wanting to make a full planning application. Councils can charge for this service.
13. Government guidance says the pre-application process can improve the planning application system’s efficiency and effectiveness and improve the quality of planning applications and their likelihood of success. It says this can be achieved by:
• “providing an understanding of the relevant planning policies and other material considerations associated with a proposed development, and
• working collaboratively and openly … at an early stage to identify, understand and seek to resolve issues associated with a proposed development”
14. The National Planning Policy Framework also comments on the pre-application process. It says:

“The right information is crucial to good decision-making, particularly where formal assessments are required (such as Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations assessment and flood risk assessment). To avoid delay, applicants should discuss what information is needed with the local planning authority and expert bodies as early as possible.”

What happened

15. Mr X has a home by a river. He asked the Council for pre-planning advice because he wanted to build a wall to stop his property flooding.
16. In April 2023, the Council met Mr X at the site. A few days later, it gave him its pre-application advice. It said Mr X would need formal planning permission. It said there were no conservation issues.
17. In December, Mr X submitted a full planning application. In April 2024, Mr X met the Council to discuss his application. The Council told Mr X he would need assessments from other agencies which he would have to pay for. It said that because of the location, he would need to provide a lot of information. Mr X said the Council did not tell him in its pre-application advice there would be more costs.
18. Mr X complained.
19. In its responses, the Council said its pre-application advice appeared to have neglected that the location was within a national landscape and on the edge of a site of special scientific interest and a special protection area. The Council said these were key constraints on development proposals. It accepted that its pre-application advice did not mention these constraints.
20. The Council agreed that its pre-application advice was not sufficiently comprehensive. It recognised it did not comprehensively explore the complexity of the case at the pre-application stage.
21. The Council offered to reimburse Mr X the cost of the pre-application advice, which was £103.80. Mr X did not accept this.
22. Mr X decided not to continue with the planning application because he could not afford the extra costs.
23. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

24. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him in its pre-application advice the full extent of the additional information that would be required.
25. The guidance about pre-application advice is clear. It says applicants should discuss with councils what information is needed as early as possible. It says the right information is crucial, “particularly where formal assessments are required”.
26. The Council accepted its pre-application advice did not mention that Mr X’s site was on a national landscape, on the edge of a site of special scientific interest, and a special protection area. It recognised these were key constraints on development proposals and its advice did not mention them.
27. The Council recognised its pre-application did not comprehensively explore the complexity of the case and therefore its advice was not sufficiently comprehensive.
28. I find the Council’s advice was not in line with the guidance. The Council failed to give Mr X all the relevant information regarding his application. This is fault.
29. I find this fault caused injustice because it caused uncertainty and meant Mr X spent time pursuing the planning process. Mr X said if the Council had given him this information to start with, he would not have gone ahead with a planning application.
30. Mr X said he paid for the full planning application, which he would not have done had the Council given him all the information he needed to make his decision.

Back to top

Action

31. Within four weeks of the final decision, I recommend the Council apologises to Mr X in writing for the uncertainty caused by failing to provide comprehensive pre-planning advice.
32. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.
33. Mr X said he paid a total of £550 to the Council for its pre-application advice (which cost £103.80) and the planning application fee. The Council disagreed with Mr X. It said the total amount Mr X paid was £396.80 (£103.80 for pre-application advice and £293.00 in the planning application fee).
34. I consider it reasonable for Mr X to pay for the pre-application advice, which he would have had to pay in any event. However, but for the fault, Mr X would not have paid the Council a planning application fee as he would not have chosen to pursue one. For this reason, I consider it appropriate and proportionate that the Council makes a payment to Mr X in the amount he paid in the planning application fee.
35. The Council has agreed to reimburse Mr X the cost of the planning application fee within four weeks of this decision. This is subject to Mr X’s evidence/receipts.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman