Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about pre-application advice produced by the Council. Such advice is not binding on a planning decision, and we would be unlikely to find fault if we investigated. Mr X also had a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s refusal of planning permission it would have been reasonable to use.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council provided the wrong information on a website and he had to resubmit his planning application at extra cost to get it approved. He wants the Council to refund part of the cost.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Pre-planning advice is provided or published by most planning authorities. It is not binding on the eventual decision. Therefore, we would be unlikely to find fault with the advice provided to Mr X if we investigated. He also had an alternative remedy available after the refusal of planning permission by way of appeal to the Planning Inspector, who is able to overturn the decisions of planning authorities. It would have been reasonable to use that right.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• He had an alternative remedy available by way of an appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use; and
• We would be unlikely to find fault with non-binding pre-planning advice if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman