Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s pre-planning application advice service. We do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice. Nor do we consider an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains the Council is using its pre-planning application advice service for pre-validation purposes. He wants the Council to apologise, change its policy and consult the public on the changes it may make. Alternatively, he wants the Government to impose management to improve the service for the county residents.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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. Mr X is a planning agent. He applied to the Council for pre-application advice for a client. He wanted the view of the Highways Authority (HA) on an access via a main ‘A’ road for a possible development of farm buildings which his client was considering converting to residential homes.
6. The Council refused the application as Mr X had not paid the required fee of £445. Mr X demanded to know why the fee was so high, given he only wanted the HA opinion. The Council confirmed the fee is for advice on the whole proposal of the conversion of farm buildings, not just the access. It also confirmed the Highways Agency is responsible for the ‘A’ road and it does not consult external agencies on applications for pre-planning application advice.
7. Mr X paid the fee and complained to the Council about its insistence on a fee and the process which he considers a waste of time rather when there should be a reduced or no fee for the opinion of the highways team only.
8. The Council provided the pre-application advice to Mr X. He escalated his complaint saying the information provided was fragmented, and some consultees have not provided any advice. He also said the Council had failed to provide value for money for its residents for many years.
9. The Council apologised for the delay in providing the advice. It provided the response from its highways team and confirmed it would forward a full response once the Planning Officer returned from leave. A full response was provided ten days later.
10. I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the service he has received and does not consider it is value for money. However, Mr X is a planning agent and has no authority to complain for his client or the residents of the county. The Council has:
• provided the pre-application advice, and explained it does not consult with the HA on pre-application enquiries
• has apologised for the delay in responding to the application; and
• confirmed it has reviewed the pre-application advice service and improvements are in place.

In view of the above I consider the injustice Mr X has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants our involvement. Also, as the Council has already made changes to the service and we cannot arrange for central Government to impose external management on the Council’s planning service, an investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman