Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him he could develop his property without the need for planning permission, in 2019. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly advised him in 2019 that he did not need planning permission to develop his property. But Mr X lives in a conservation area so does not have the right to develop his property without planning permission. Mr X believes the Council’s building control department should have informed him he needed planning permission while inspecting the work for compliance with the Building Regulations.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. The advice Mr X refers to in his complaint dates back some five years and there is no evidence from the time to show what Mr X asked or what the Council told him. We cannot therefore say, on balance, that the Council wrongly advised him.
6. Whether or not development requires planning permission it must also be inspected to ensure compliance with the Building Regulations, so it was not wrong for Mr X to involve the Council’s building control team. But their role is separate from that of the planning department and we would not expect them to advise about the need for planning permission or to know his property is in a conservation area and did not therefore benefit from the right to carry out certain works without it.
7. The Council has refused Mr X’s application for planning permission to retain the development and has now issued him an enforcement notice requiring him to remove it. Mr X has appealed against the decision and it will be for the Planning Inspectorate to decide if he can keep it. We cannot interfere in the appeal process or say the Council must pay Mr X’s costs; it is for the Planning Inspectorate to determine the case and it may award Mr X costs if it feels the Council has acted unreasonably.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman