Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conditions the Council placed on planning permission, which Mr X says contradict the pre-application advice it gave him. It is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed conditions on approval of planning permission, meaning he could not proceed with building works. He said it contradicted itself, charged for a service it failed to deliver and gave unclear and conflicting advice. He said the matter caused him significant distress, and he wanted the Council to give clear planning permission without conditions attached.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)
3. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about conditions placed on planning permission.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint is about dissatisfaction with the conditions the Council placed on planning permission it granted him. This is a matter Mr X can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (PI), and we would normally expect people to use their statutory right of appeal. We cannot decide planning conditions should be removed or changed. There is no reason for us to consider this matter instead of the PI, and the PI is best placed to provide the outcome Mr X seeks from complaining.
7. Mr X also raised issues relating to the Council’s communications with him. These matters are not separable from the substantive complaint, and it is not a good use of public resources to consider complaints about peripheral matters when we cannot investigate the substantive matter.
8. Mr X’s complaint was also about the Council’s pre-application advice, which he considers was a waste of money given that it did not match the planning permission subsequently granted. Mr X says, for example, the pre-application advice stated he would be able to cut back trees and shrubbery by 25% and some roots could be cut, but he says the planning permission has placed more restrictions in this sense.
9. Pre-application advice does not bind the Council. Officers will respond to the proposals and information put forward by the applicant and advise whether they are likely to receive planning permission and how proposals may be changed to better comply with relevant planning policies. Any planning application then submitted must be considered on its merits, taking account of representations from statutory consultees and people responding to the publicised application. Despite Mr X’s frustration about the advice not matching the planning permission, this does not mean the advice was wrong or that the Council was at fault.
10. Ultimately, it is the planning permission, not the pre-application advice, that Mr X is dissatisfied with. Given that we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is amendments to the conditions on his planning permission, it is reasonable for him to appeal the matter to the PI.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to appeal the conditions attached to the planning permission to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman