The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council providing incorrect planning advice in 2023. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council wrongly advised him to get planning permission when he opened a tattoo business. He says he had to pay the planning fee and delayed opening his business.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X made a general enquiry to the Council. He did not apply or pay for formal pre planning application advice. As such, the officers gave general advice and the emails to Mr X show officers were unsure whether tattoo studios fell within class E, which was a relatively new planning class at the time. Government guidance was also not clear. However, the overall view was that planning permission was required for change of use for Mr X’s property from Planning Class B2 - general industrial use to a tattoo studio.
Mr X says other tattoo businesses have not had to apply for planning permission as the Council now accepts such businesses fall within planning class E.
Following Mr X’s report of a possible breach of planning control, the Council carried out further research. It says recent appeals and court cases have clarified the situation and it is now generally accepted that tattoo studios fall within class E.
I understand Mr X is unhappy that he had to obtain planning permission and says he was disadvantaged because he had to delay opening his business because of the need to get planning permission and the planning application fee.
However, the advice given in 2023 was based on knowledge available at the time. Officers now have the benefit of planning appeals and case law on which to base their advice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council advised him that planning permission was needed to change the use of his property before opening a tattoo studio.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman