Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application and its pre-application advice. Mr X used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, and there is no evidence the Council’s pre-application advice caused him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly refused his planning application, failed to fairly assess his pre-application planning request and told his architect to wait for the outcome of his appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for planning permission, but the Council refused the application because it considered the proposed development was too large. Mr X appealed to the Planning Inspector. While the appeal was ongoing, Mr X submitted a request for pre-application advice about how to amend the development to make it acceptable.
8. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his request for pre-application advice. He also says the Planning Officer advised his architect to wait for the outcome of the appeal and suggested the appeal was likely to succeed. Mr X says this casts doubt on whether the Council properly assessed the original application.
9. We cannot consider any part of the complaint about how the Council handled the original application. Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision to the Planning Inspector. The law says we cannot investigate any aspect of the planning process where someone has used their right of appeal, as set out at Paragraph 4.
10. I appreciate Mr X says he spent a considerable amount of money on pre-application advice. But it was his choice to spend money on revised plans while his appeal was still ongoing. We have not seen evidence of fault by the Council or that its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. The Council’s original concerns could have been addressed by responding to the reasons for the refusal. It was up to Mr X to decide whether to apply for pre-application advice, submit a new planning application or await the outcome of the appeal. Each option carries potential costs and consequences, and there is no suggestion that the Council misadvised him; rather it suggested what it considered the best course of action based on the information available to it at the time.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he used his right of appeal to the Planning Inspector, which means we cannot consider the planning application process. The Council’s actions on the pre-application advice did not cause Mr X significant injustice, so further investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman