Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice service. This is because the Council has dealt with Mr X’s request and provided advice on his proposal and there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant a refund of the fee.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not contact him to discuss his pre-application planning advice request and did not answer his questions. He does not consider the advice he received warrants the cost, which was £180.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has a large area of garden land which he says he has been told has ample room for a new dwelling. He intended to sell the land to a developer and wanted to obtain confirmation from the Council that it would grant planning permission for a new dwelling on the site.
5. Mr X applied for pre-application advice on 4 August 2023 and the Council responded with its advice on 4 September 2023. But Mr X is unhappy the officer dealing with his case did not contact him by telephone and did not respond to his telephone messages. He says he did not feel supported through the process and is unhappy some of his questions were not answered.
6. The Council accepts the planning officer should have responded to Mr X’s telephone messages but it does not consider this would have altered the pre-application advice it provided. The advice stated that it was unlikely to grant planning permission for a new dwelling on the site and the Council’s response at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure answered the questions Mr X said had not been addressed in the advice he received.
7. Ultimately, while Mr X does not consider the Council’s advice service was worth the cost there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him significant injustice. The pre-application advice process involves considering a proposal against local and national policy and guidance to provide informal advice on whether it is acceptable. It is not simply a cost for writing a letter as Mr X suggests.
8. It is unfortunate that the Council does not support the principle of development on the site but as it has explained the advice is informal and not binding. It has answered Mr X’s question of whether a builder may be able to build a dwelling on the land and if he disagrees with the decision he may apply for planning permission or he may still sell his land to a developer without support from the Council to build on it and they can apply for planning permission. Although the Council does not consider the land is suitable for building on based on the information Mr X provided it is possible some or all of its concerns may be addressed through the design as part of a formal application for planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant a refund of the pre-application advice fee.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman