A businesswoman who received incorrect planning advice from Northumberland County Council demanded £27,000 in compensation.

An investigation by the local government ombudsman reported that the woman, identified as Mrs X, was given “incorrect” planning advice regarding a commercial unit she had signed a lease agreement on.

Furthermore, she also claimed the council failed to respond to requests for more information for a “significant” amount of time.

She said this meant she was unable to open her unit for business, during which time she spent £27,000 on rent. Mrs X said the mistake had caused her and her business “severe financial hardship” and affected her physical and mental health.

She initially contacted the council in October 2021 to see if she would need planning permission to carry out work on the unit prior to opening it for business.

She made what is known as a “pre-planning advice enquiry” to the council, at a cost of £40. The ombudsman’s report said she wanted to “formally check” whether she would need to submit a planning application, but did not believe she would be required to do so.

However, in December she was told that she would need to go through the planning process after all. Mrs X attempted to seek clarification but claimed that the council failed to respond to numerous emails and calls until she contacted her local county councillor for help in April 2023.

At this point, the planning department admitted it had made an error and refunded Mrs X’s £40 inquiry fee, as well as apologising. Unsatisfied, Mrs X made a formal complaint in May 2023, arguing that if she received the correct advice she could have “started trading much sooner”.

The Ombudsman found fault with the council’s initial response, and felt the apology and refund was “not an appropriate remedy”. However, due to a lack of evidence of the emails sent by Mrs X, the ombudsman felt there was no fault in the council’s failure to respond.

The inspector felt that if a planning application had been submitted, the situation would have resolved “much more quickly”. Furthermore, the report states that the planning section of the county council’s website had “clear information” about what type of permission would be needed.

Concluding the investigation, the ombudsman said there was “no evidence to show Mrs X pursued the matter with urgency”. As a result, he recommended an additional payment of £150 in compensation from the council.

Responding to the Ombudsman’s report, a spokesman for the council said: “We note the Ombudsman’s finding and have paid the complainant £150. We acknowledge incorrect advice was given on this occasion and have since refreshed our pre-application service.”