Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because Mr X applied for planning permission against the Council’s recommendation and did not seek any further advice after correcting an error regarding the location of the proposal. The Council also made clear its advice was informal and non-binding and it was Mr X’s choice to incur costs to pursue a formal application. We could not therefore say the injustice he claims is the result of any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s planning officer made mistakes in their pre-application planning advice which led him to believe his proposal for development may be acceptable. He says he spent almost £2,000 applying for planning permission but the Council rejected his application.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. The Council’s pre-application advice stated Mr X’s proposal was not acceptable in principle. Mr X’s agent sought to correct an error made by the planning officer as to the location of the proposed development, which was the reason given for the proposal being unacceptable, but did not then seek any further advice about how this affected their view. However the agent told Mr X the planning officer was “in agreement with the principle of development as per my submitted design.”
6. Mr X then spent £1,500 on architect’s fees and a further £462 to apply for planning permission for the development. The Council considered Mr X’s application but refused it on three grounds including one relating to the location of the proposal.
7. Mr X is unhappy as he believes the advice failed to identify concerns with the proposal which were then given as reasons to refuse his application. But the Council’s written advice was clear it was “given in good faith but is an officer opinion only and therefore is not binding on any formal decision the Council may make following the receipt of a planning application.”
8. Mr X therefore incurred his costs at risk the Council would refuse his application and that they would be wasted. It was his decision to proceed with the proposal and this could have been avoided, had Mr X or his agent sought further advice. We could not therefore say the wasted costs which he claims as his injustice were the result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not say Mr X’s injustice is the result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman