Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application for a shed and deal with a report of a breach of planning control. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decision to justify an investigation. Nor is there evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s report of a breach of planning control.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to approve their neighbour’s planning application for a shed in their front garden.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to:
• Apologise for approving the application.
• Require the neighbour to screen the outbuilding from the highway; and
• Change the description of the outbuilding on the planning application from shed to log cabin or lodge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a large outbuilding in her neighbour’s front garden. The Council’s records show it publicised the application. Mrs X and another person objected for the following reasons:
• The height and size of the outbuilding is not compatible with the street scene.
• Overdevelopment of the site and a negative impact on Mrs X’s light and view.
• The outbuilding is forward of principal elevation.
• The outbuilding is too close to the highway.
• There are concerns with deeds, ownership of boundary and drainage.
• Planning permission was not sought for a previous shed on the site which was smaller.
7. The Planning Officer report notes:
• The planning application was part retrospective.
• The shed is larger than the previous shed on the plot but occupies a similar footprint.
• The shed has been lowered in height by half a metre.
• The Officer considered the plot is large enough to accommodate the outbuilding.
• The materials are appropriate.
• There are other sheds in the area which are visible and would be prominent if hedges were removed ( which the owners could do without permission).
• There is a difference in topography, the shed is of limited height and there is no significant overshadowing of Mrs X’s property, and there is no impact on parking.
8. Having considered the application, including Mrs X’s objections, the Council decided to grant planning permission.
9. From the information we have seen there is not enough evidence the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when considering the planning application. Without evidence of fault in the process, we cannot question the decision the Council has made.
10. Mrs X reported a breach of planning permission to the Council. She questioned the size, saying the shed is huge.
11. Mrs X also says the outbuilding is not a shed and demands the Council changes the description on planning permission to a log cabin or lodge instead of shed.
12. In response to Mrs X’s report, the Council advised her officers have measured the outbuilding and are satisfied with the measurements.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it considered the planning application or her report of a breach of planning control.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman