Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to convert bedsits into 2 flats. Or its decision not to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control. We have not seen evidence of fault in the decision-making process.

The complaint

1. I shall refer to the complainant in this case as Mr C.
2. Mr C complains the Council granted planning permission to convert bedsits into two flats and demolish a single storey extension to a Grade two listed property replacing it with one of a similar size.
3. He says the replacement extension is larger than the original and has a flat roof enabling use of the roof as a garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr C and the planning documents available on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received applications for planning permission and listed building consent to convert bedsits into 2 flats and replace an existing ground floor extension with one of a similar size.
8. It erected a site notice, published a notice in the local paper and wrote to addresses in the same street. Neither the Town Council nor Historic England objected to the application. No other objections were received.
9. A Council planning Officer wrote a report assessing the proposed development. The report referred to relevant planning policies, the planning history of the site and considered the main planning issues. The Officer recommended approval and the applications were approved under the Council’s scheme of delegation.
10. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning and listed building consent applications.
11. Following reports of breaches of planning control, Officers inspected the site. It says:
• Measurements taken confirm the replacement extension is built within acceptable tolerances.
• The installation of a door instead of a window is a breach of planning control. But having discussed the matter with the Historic Environment Officer, the Council has decided it is not expedient to take enforcement action.
• No permission has been granted for a roof terrace. Any such use of the extension roof should be reported to planning enforcement.
12. Government guidance does not say that councils should act against all unauthorised development, but a council should act where serious harm to local public amenity is being caused. The decisive issue for the local planning authority should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the unauthorised use of land or buildings merit protection in the public interest.
13. In this case, the Council decided not to exercise its power of planning enforcement because the breach and harm was too minor to warrant this. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the planning and listed building consent applications. Nor have we seen evidence of fault in the way it considered the reports of breaches of planning control.

We do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman