Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and granted a prior approval application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Also, we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice because his neighbour was not told about the application. Finally we cannot require the Council to withdraw its approval or discipline officers.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Failed to follow the correct notification process when considering a prior approval application.
• Was inconsistent when notifying the parish council.
• Failed to follow an expectation of consistent decision making; and
• Failed to consider material considerations and withheld material objections.
2. He says this caused him to incur costs for planning consultant and solicitor fees. And delays by the Council prevented him applying for a Judicial Review.
3. Mr X wants the Council to:
• revoke the prior approval
• discipline officers
• compensate him for his financial expenses; and
• apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says the Council failed to display a site notice. Instead it sent letters to eight addresses and failed to include two neighbouring properties. He says because of this two of his neighbours were denied the opportunity to object to the application.
8. The law requires the Council to either display a site notice or write to any adjoining properties.
9. In his case the Council says it wrote to the neighbouring addresses. If Mr X’s neighbours did not receive a notification it is for them to make a complaint on this point. Mr X was notified and was able to make his own objections. Therefore any failure in the Council to notify his neighbours did not cause Mr X a direct injustice.
10. Mr X also says the Council was inconsistent when contacting the parish council.
11. The Council says it notified the parish council of the application. However, it used a wrong email address. However, the Council is not required to tell the parish council about prior approval applications. Therefore I do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice because of this error.
12. Mr X says the Council failed to consider material planning considerations and was inconsistent in its’ planning decisions.
13. Prior approval applications require the Council to consult the:
• Local Lead Flood Authority
• Environmental Health Officer
• Local Highways Authority

It is also required to invite representations from immediate neighbours.

14. From the information I have seen:
• The Environment Agency has no objections on flooding concerns.
• The Environmental Health Officers have no objections.
• The Highways Authority has no objections.
15. From the planning officer’s report I can see Mr X’s relevant planning objections were considered and transport and highway issues were reviewed in detail.
16. I understand Mr X is concerned the Council has not applied the same considerations to the prior approval application as it did to a full planning application which he submitted for his property. He also believes the Council suppressed an objection from its conservation officer.
17. A prior approval application is not the same as a full planning application. The Council can only consider the elements identified in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order when making its decision. This specifies the Council may consider whether prior approval is needed for the elements of the proposal concerning the:
• transport and highways impact of the development;
• noise impacts of the development;
• contamination risks on the site; and
• flooding risks on the site.

A full planning application allows the Council to consider all parts of the proposal against all local and national planning policies.

18. From the information I have seen it appears the Council considered all relevant information it received that it is permitted to consider under the prior notification process.
19. Mr X wants us to require the Council to withdraw the prior approval application and discipline a certain officer. This is not an outcome we could achieve even if we were to find fault in the decision-making process.
20. Finally, Mr X says the delay in the Council’s responses to him prevented him from seeking a judicial review of its decision to grant prior approval. I disagree as it was open for Mr X to seek his own legal advice once he became aware of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the prior approval application.
• We do not consider the failure to notify his neighbours of the application caused Mr X a direct personal injustice.
• We cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman