Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with applications for prior approval. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of himself, and other residents, about the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for developments near their homes. Mr X says the developments are not permitted development and prior approval should not have been granted. He says the Council failed to properly consider resident’s objections or the impact the developments would have on neighbouring properties.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Between permitted development rights and a full planning application there is a third process known as prior approval. This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development, but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work.
7. In this case, the Council granted prior approval for developments near Mr X’s property. Mr X says the proposed works are not permitted development and the Council should not have approved the applications. He says many residents objected to the applications and the Council did not consider the impact on neighbouring properties.
8. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the applications before granting prior approval. The case officer’s reports summarised resident’s objections and addressed the concerns raised. However, the case officer decided the developments would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy or light. Mr X says the Council should have visited neighbouring properties to properly assess the applications. But the case officer did visit the site and there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before deciding an application.
9. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s definition of a storey and says the proposals do not comply with the requirements in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. However, the case officer’s reports set out the permitted development criteria and explained why the proposals would be permitted development. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council also further explained how it calculated the building storeys.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the applications. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement to decide the proposals were acceptable and complied with permitted development rights. The Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the applications, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman