Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application and a report of a breach of planning control. We consider that an investigation into the reasons for the complainant not receiving a notification letter will not lead to a different outcome. Also, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application or the report of a breach of planning control to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• failed to notify her about a planning application
• failed to consider parish council objections to the proposal; and
• failed to act on her report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complains she was not told about her neighbour’s planning application to build a garden room at their home.
6. Planning authorities must publicise all planning applications. Depending on the nature of the development, publication may be by newspaper advertisement and / or site notice and / or neighbour notification (The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.) The notice will invite ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter discussion of matters with members of the public who have objected to a planning application.
7. When planning authorities receive planning applications, they must consider relevant planning matters in reaching a decision. These may be obvious or be raised by members of the public who comment on the applications. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 specifies a range of relevant planning matters. Among these are the possible effects on the amenity of neighbours. This can be in terms of size, scale, light pollution, odour, loss of privacy and others. While the planning authority must consider relevant matters, it has discretion about what weight to give to them. The Ombudsman’s role is only to consider whether the planning authority acted correctly by considering relevant planning matters, not to reach their own view of them where there is no fault.
8. Mrs X says she did not receive a letter from the Council telling her about the planning application.
9. I cannot know why Mrs X did not receive the Council’s letter. However, in response to the complaint, the Council says its records show it sent the letters. The Council is not required to provide proof of postage. I consider that further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
10. The parish council objected to the application. The Planning Officer’s report includes a summary of the objections. It explains why the Planning Officer considers the proposed garden room overcomes the objections received.
11. I will not investigate this part of the complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable. This is after consideration of local and national planning policies; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
12. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.
13. Mrs X complains the Council has not acted on her report that her neighbour is using the garden room for commercial activities, and not as a private residential space which was granted planning permission.
14. The Council confirms Planning Enforcement Officers visited the site and spoke with the neighbour’s agent. They decided that although the garden room is being used for events, the site remains a residential property with occasional events taking place. The Council advised Mrs X that, based on the evidence it had gathered, it would not be taking any action against the business use of the garden room. However, if Mrs X provided new evidence, it would investigate further.
15. We do not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action. Our role is to review the process by which the Council reached its decision.
16. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. In reaching my decision I have noted:
• it is for the Council to decide whether to take action against a breach of planning control
• the Council has visited the site and spoken with the neighbour’s planning agent
• the Principal Planning Enforcement Officer and the Planning Enforcement Manager reviewed the information gathered and agreed with the decision not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• further investigation into her non-receipt of the Council’s notification letter will not lead to a different outcome
• there is insufficient evidence for her complaint that the Council ignored the parish council’s objections to the neighbour’s planning application; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her report of a breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman