Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that an agricultural building is permitted development. Nor in the way it considered a Prior Approval application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council refuses to confirm whether a development is lawful, despite it granting prior approval

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Permitted development (PD) rights are a national grant of planning permission. These allow the carrying out of certain building works and changes of use without having to make a planning application. PD rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GDPO).
6. Where a relevant PD right is in place, the developer does not need to apply to the local planning authority for permission to carry out the work. However, occasionally it is necessary to get prior approval from a local planning authority before carrying out permitted development.
7. The Council received an application for prior approval for the design, siting, and external appearance for a building to store agricultural produce and machinery. The relevant sections of Part 6, Class A of the GDPO states:

“2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), development consisting of—

(a)the erection, extension, or alteration of a building.

…is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions—

(i)the developer must, before beginning the development, apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the siting, design, and external appearance of the building…”

8. In this case the Council confirms the building is permitted development. However, according to the regulations, prior approval was needed for the siting, design, and external appearance of the building.
9. A site notice was placed at the site and Mrs X objected to the proposal. A planning officer prepared a report on the scheme.
10. The report notes:
• the site of the building
• Mrs X’s home is 75 metres from the site
• a description of the site, the proposed building and use
• nearby heritage assets and a scheduled monument; and
• confirmation there are no controls on the existing agricultural access
11. Having considered the details of the proposal the case officer recommended that prior approval was granted. The Council agreed.
12. Mrs X complains the Council refuses to confirm whether a development is lawful. I disagree, the planning officers report states:

“In considering the proposal in relation to the legislation, the erection of a building can be considered as permitted development providing it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture relating to that unit and subject to a number of criteria.”:

13. The report considers the relevant information, and the Council is satisfied the agricultural building is permitted development. It approved the prior approval application on the siting, design, and external appearance.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council:
• considered an application for prior approval of the siting, design, and external appearance of an agricultural building near her home; and
• decided the erection of the building is permitted development

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman