Summary: Mr A says the Council misadvised him about the need to submit a planning application in 2024. We have not found evidence of fault by the Council and have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr A) says the Council misadvised him about the need to submit a planning application in 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have considered the information provided by Mr A. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
4. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered Mr A’s reply.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. In January 2024 Mr A emailed the Council asking if he needed to apply for planning permission for proposed building works at his property. The Validation Team told him that planning permission would be needed. It also sent him a link to the planning portal website which provided information about when a person needs to seek planning permission. At the end of January Mr A submitted a planning application to the Council.
6. In February the Council’s Validation Team told Mr A his drawings did not meet the validation criteria and explained the issues. Mr A subsequently provided revised drawings. On 20 February the Validation Team told Mr A his case would now be assessed by a Planning Officer. On 13 March a Planning Officer wrote to Mr A after assessing the details of his application. They explained there were inaccuracies in the plans Mr A had supplied and set out what the issues were. The Council had invalidated the application due to those inaccuracies. It also advised that it would be unlikely to support the application Mr A had submitted and referred him to its guidance.
7. Mr A then complained to the Council. He said the Council should have picked up any issues before he had paid for an architect and paid the planning application fees. The Council replied in April that it had followed the correct process.

What should have happened

8. If a person has queries about proposed building works, they can ask the Council for pre-application advice, including whether an application is needed. The Council can supply advice, but it is not binding. In order to test if any advice is correct the person would need to make a planning application to the Council.
9. On receipt of a planning application the Verification Team will check if the documents required have been supplied. This stage is administrative, it is not assessing whether the application should or will be granted permission. If there are verification issues with any documents the Verification Team can flag these up to the applicant affording them a chance to submit the required documentation. If the documents needed are provided by an applicant the case will then be referred to a Planning Officer to assess the merits of the application. If the Planning Officer finds significant errors in the plans, they have the right to invalidate the application. The Council should notify the applicant about the decision.

Was there fault by the Council

10. I have not found fault by the Council. I understand Mr A feels the Council should have identified any issues with his planning application at the validation stage. As set out above, the Validation Team are carrying out an administrative role and checking the documents requested by the Council have been supplied. Officers can point out any clear verification errors in the documents an applicant supplies but they are not formally assessing the merits of the application. In this case the Council was correct to validate the application because it had received the necessary documentation. The Planning Officer then undertook an assessment of the plans provided by Mr A. At that stage it was clear the application contained significant inaccuracies which meant the Council had the right to invalidate the application. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process in this case. I appreciate my decision will be disappointing for Mr A. It is important to note the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr A disagrees with the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman