Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with the pre-application planning advice he paid for. We agree and find the Council at fault for not doing so. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to refund the fee Mr X paid for the advice and apologise to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not provide him with the pre-application planning advice he paid for. He says this has caused him financial disadvantage, frustration and put him to the time and trouble of pursuing this matter.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of my investigation I:

• considered Mr X’s complaint and discussed it with him;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• had regard to information about the Council’s pre-application advice service and;
• set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and invited Mr X and the Council to comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council offers a pre-application advice service for planning applications for small and medium proposals. The cost for advice on a small proposal is £1112 (including VAT).
6. To request pre-application advice a pre-application advice form must be completed. The form asks for details of the potential application and the current use of the site. It also allows copies of plans for the potential application to be included.
7. Pre-application advice can include site visits or meetings. It says that a formal written response is usually provided within six weeks of a request.

Background

8. Site Y is located within the Council’s area. Several applications have been put in proposing development of the site to provide a new residential dwelling. The applications have been refused by the Council and subsequent appeals to the Planning Inspectorate have been dismissed.
9. Mr X put in a planning application for a new residential dwelling at Site Y in 2022. The application was refused. The decision notice for the application gave the following reasons for the refusal:

• the plans submitted were inconsistent within each other;
• the proposal would detract from the prevailing character and appearance of the area;
• the proposal would provide a poor outlook and limited access to daylight and sunlight for future occupiers;
• the submitted plans did not demonstrate the development could take place without harming existing trees in neighbouring gardens and;
• the plans did not provide mitigation against the impact of potential recreational disturbance from development of the site.

10. The decision notice also included an informative saying the Council has produced policies and written guidance all of which is available on its website and offers a pre planning application advice service.
11. On 24 April 2023 Mr X sought a pre-application advice meeting from the Council before making a new application for the site. He completed the pre-application advice request form and provided details of the planning history of the site. He also gave details of the proposed application which was for new residential dwelling. He paid the £1112 application fee.
12. On 6 June 2023 a pre-application advice meeting between the Council and Mr X took place. At the meeting the planning officer explained the reasons for the Council’s decision to refuse the most recent, and previous, proposals for the site. It told Mr X the site was not suitable for a new residential property.
13. Following the meeting Mr X did not receive a written report of the advice given.
14. Mr X complained to the Council because he was unhappy with the pre-application advice meeting and that he did not get a written report following it. He said the meeting only lasted 15 minutes and he did not receive any advice only a reiteration of the reasons for refusing earlier applications. He asked for a refund of the fee he paid.
15. The Council’s replied. It said it did not suggest Mr X arrange a pre-application meeting to discuss the reasons for refusing applications for the site. It was therefore Mr X’s decision to request the meeting. It also explained the pre-application service is to discuss potential applications and is not a service to discuss previous refused applications. For these reasons it declined to refund the fee paid by Mr X.
16. Mr X remained unhappy and approached the Ombudsman for help.
17. We made enquiries of the Council. In response it told us:

• officers did not suggest Mr X request a pre-application advice meeting, as confirmed by him in correspondence
• in correspondence with the Council Mr X said he decided to ask for pre-application advice after reading the informative included on the Decision Notice for the refusal of the most application for the site.
• there are no minimum requirements for a requesting a pre-application advice meeting and so requests are not denied.
• registering Mr X’s pre-application request has resulted in administrative cost to the Council. Officer time was also used to review documents provided by Mr X as part of his pre-application advice request.
• it did not provide Mr X with a written a report because the meeting reiterated the reasons why a new residential development at the site is not acceptable. These reasons are already set out in the decision notices for previous applications and dismissed planning appeals.

Finding

18. Mr X sought pre-application advice after receiving a refusal for an application for a new residential dwelling at Site Y. The decision notice provided details of the different reasons why the application was refused but neither it nor the case officer report explicitly said that no development of Site Y would be acceptable. It is therefore reasonable that Mr X might want to have pre-application advice prior to making other applications for the site.
19. The decision notice for Mr X’s previous application for the site contained an informative which referenced the Council’s pre-application advice service. The Council says that Mr X misunderstood the informative and thought he could use the pre-application advice service to discuss the reasons for the refusal of his application. I do not agree. The pre-application advice form completed by Mr X included details of two new potential proposals to erect a residential dwelling at the site. Therefore, I do not see that Mr X was seeking to use the service to discuss the refusal of earlier applications but to inform the submission of a new application and so was in keeping with the purpose of the service.
20. The Council says it does not screen pre-application advice requests. While I recognise this the Council should be acting in good faith when managing its pre-application advice service. In Mr X’s case he provided details of the history of the site and details of possible new applications to erect a new residential dwelling. If the Council’s position is Site Y is not suitable for development of this type it should have explained this to Mr X and not accepted his request. It is my view the Council’s actions in this matter amount to fault. This has caused Mr X financial disadvantage because he has paid for a service he did not receive.
21. I note the Council did not provide Mr X with a written report following the meeting. It said it did not do so because the reasons why the site is not suitable for a new residential dwelling are detailed in the decision notices and dismissed appeals for previously submitted applications. I consider the Council’s acknowledgment that it did not provide a written report for these reasons supports my view that it should not have continued with Mr X’s pre-application advice request.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified the Council has agreed to :

• refund Mr X the full cost of his pre-application advice request and;
• apologise to him in writing.

The Council should complete the agreed remedy within in four weeks of my final decision and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman