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. It is also unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his request for pre-application planning advice. Mr X says the Council has failed to provide the service he paid for and the advice he received was poor. Mr X has also complained about how the Council has communicated with him.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Many councils offer a range of pre-application planning advice services depending on the type, scale and complexity of the proposed development. A council’s website will usually set out the services it offers and the charges that apply. Pre-application advice does not bind a council and any planning application submitted will be considered on its merits. Councils do not act as agents or consultants for applicants and will respond to advise whether planning permission is likely to be granted or how a proposal may be changed to better comply with the relevant policies.
6. In this case, Mr X requested and paid for pre-application advice as his previous applications for permission to extend his property were refused. Mr X is unhappy with the response he received from the Council. He says the advice was poor and lacked specific direction. However, the pre-application advice set out the details of the proposal and the history for the site. The Council also explained why the proposed development was unlikely to be acceptable and suggested a possible alternative option for the site. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s advice request, it is unlikely I could find fault.
7. Mr X has also complained about how the Council has communicated with him. The Council has accepted there have been issues responding to Mr X’s correspondence and apologised. I consider this a suitable remedy in the circumstances, and it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or that an investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X in relation to his concerns about how the Council communicated with him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman