The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a the quality and timeliness of the Council’s paid-for pre-planning advice to Mr X. Pre-planning advice is not binding, and the delay was limited. Mr X also had an alternative remedy available against the Council’s refusal of planning permission by way of appeal to the Planning Inspector.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council took too long to provide paid-for pre-planning advice that was not actionable. He wanted the Council to refund the pre-application advice fee.
In his complaint to the Council, Mr X also complained about a lack of engagement by the Council, and about the grounds for its refusal of his planning application.
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, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about a decision to refuse planning permission.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is no statutory timescale for pre-planning advice, whether paid-for or free. Although the Council took almost eight weeks to issue its advice, rather the four its website says it aims for, the delay is not enough on its own to warrant our involvement. The advice was also not binding on the application, so investigation by us would be unlikely to find that different advice would have been actionable or led to a different planning decision. The same holds true for the Council’s engagement with Mr X. The refusal of planning permission also carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the substantive decision carried a right of appeal to the Planning Inspector it would have been reasonable to use. Investigation would be unlikely to find enough fault in the related matters separable from the planning decision to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman