Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice and its handling of her applications for planning permission. There is no evidence of fault in the pre-application advice and if Mrs X disputes the Council’s decisions it would be reasonable for her to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about the Council’s pre-application planning advice and about its handling of her applications for planning permission. She says the advice and decision notices were not written in plain English.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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))
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mrs X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I obtained a copy of the Council’s pre-application advice and reviewed the decision notices for her planning applications. I shared my draft decision with Mrs X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X sought pre-application advice from the Council about a proposal to extend her property in 2020. A planning officer visited and provided written advice that the Council would likely not support the proposal if Mrs X decided to submit an application. This was on the basis of the size/design of the extension and the impact on neighbouring properties. The letter stated, in bold:

“Please note that any views or opinions expressed are in good faith, without prejudice to the formal consideration of any planning application, which will be subject to public consultation and ultimately decided by the Council…”

7. Mrs X applied for planning permission but altered her plans to make the extension bigger. The Council considered this was not acceptable but at her request it agreed to meet with Mrs X to discuss it. The planning officer suggested one way Mrs X may make the proposal acceptable and wrote to her soon after suggesting that if she made the extension smaller, as well as altering the design and materials proposed, it may be acceptable. Mrs X altered the design but did not change the size of the extension. The Council therefore refused the application.
8. Mrs X says the Council wrongly considered the separation distance between her property and her neighbour despite this not having been mentioned at pre-application stage and not being part of the Council’s adopted guidance/policies.
9. Mrs X resubmitted her application with minor amendments following the Council’s refusal but although she proposed a slightly smaller extension it remained above the dimensions the Council suggested may be acceptable. It therefore refused the application.
10. Mrs X believes the Council should refund her pre-application fee, compensate her for the cost of altering her plans, waive the application fee so she can submit a new application without charge and amend its policy.

My assessment

Planning applications

11. If Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of her planning applications and its decisions not to grant planning permission, for whatever reason, it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. It is not for us to determine whether the Council properly considered the application and if its decision was right.

Pre-application advice

12. Mrs X is unhappy the Council advised about certain points in its pre-application advice but not others. She says she incurred additional expense by altering her plans when she had no reasonable prospect of success.
13. I have reviewed the Council’s pre-application advice and the advice is clear that the Council would not support the proposal. The letter references the design/appearance of the extension and impact on neighbour properties as reasons it did not consider it acceptable and Mrs X did not address these points for either application; indeed her first application increased the size and while the second reduced it slightly it remained above the size proposed at pre-application stage.
14. While the Council did not specifically mention separation distances this is not evidence of fault. The advice explains the reasons the impact on neighbouring properties would not be acceptable and the Council refused her applications for the same reasons as set out in the pre-application advice.
15. It is clear Mrs X altered her plans following feedback from the Council but she did not address all of the points raised in the refusal. Any costs she incurred were the result of her own decisions made without any guarantee the Council would grant planning permission. We could not therefore reasonably say the Council must compensate her for them.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council in its pre-application advice. If Mrs X disputes the Council’s decisions on her planning applications it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman