Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate information on the Council's website and in a response to a request for pre-application planning advice. We consider that further investigation will not add to that already carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y. He says the information provided by the Council on its website and in response to a request for pre-application planning advice was incorrect. He says this resulted in Ms Y submitting a planning application that could never succeed and incurring significant expense.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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. Ms Y used the Council’s pre-application advice service before applying for planning permission. The Council acknowledges it did not refer to the existence of a Special Protection Area (SPA). It also acknowledges information about the SPA was not available on its website.
6. However, the pre-application advice letter to Ms Y states:

“It is strongly recommended that you seek advice separately from the following external consultees, consultations with whom falls outside of the remit of the WBC pre-application service

• Surrey County Council as Local Highway Authority
• Surrey Wildlife Trust
• Natural England.”

7. The letter also states:

“…I must confirm that the advice given in this letter forms my own personal opinion and will not prejudice the formal determination of any forthcoming planning application by the Council.”

8. The Council’s website states:

“Any advice given by Waverley Officers for pre-application enquiries does not indicate any formal decision by Waverley as the Local Planning Authority. Any views or opinions are given in good faith and are based on relevant issues in place at the time of consideration, without prejudice to the formal consideration of any planning application. The final decision on any forthcoming planning application can only be taken after Waverley has consulted local people, statutory consultees and any other interested parties.”

9. Ms Y chose not to follow the Council’s recommendation and did not contact any of the named consultees and submitted a planning application.
10. Natural England objected to the application and the Council refused to grant planning permission.
11. I understand the Council has acknowledged it would have been helpful to draw Ms Y’s attention to potential issues relating to the impact on the SPA. It has amended information on its website.
12. Councils are not bound by the advice they provide, and pre-application advice is not a guarantee that any subsequent application will be approved. The Council’s advice response did strongly recommend Ms X contact Natural England for advice. Had she done so, she would have been made aware of its objections to her proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation by the Ombudsman will not add to that already carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman