Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained on behalf of Mr Y about how the Council dealt with his planning application. He says the Council failed to tell him that the extension could be built without full planning permission using the prior notification process. Mr X says Mr Y has unnecessarily had to pay the planning application fee as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr Y’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision and have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

Prior notification process

4. In 2013, the government introduced a scheme allowing people with permitted development rights to build larger, single storey, rear extensions under the prior notification process. There is no set application form for the prior notification process and no fees apply. If someone decides to extend their property using the prior notification process, they must tell the Council what their plans are and provide the addresses for the adjoining neighbours. The Council will notify the neighbours who can object if they believe the extension will harm their amenity. The Council will then decide if the impact is acceptable.

What happened

5. Mr X applied on behalf of Mr Y for permission to extend his property. A few weeks after making the planning application Mr X discovered that the extension could be built under the prior notification process without the need for a full planning application. Mr X says he contacted the Council to raise his concerns about the application being submitted in error. The Council responded and said that it could not refund the application fee and Mr X should wait for the outcome of the planning application. The Council granted planning permission the following week.
6. Mr X says he made the planning application in good faith as he understood it did not meet the requirements for permitted development. However, he says the Council should have contacted him after he submitted the application to tell him the proposal met the criterial for prior notification. Mr X says if it had communicated with him, he could have withdrawn the application and avoided the unnecessary planning application fee. Mr X says the Council should refund the application fee. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint and says it has not responded within the required timeframes.
7. The Council has refused Mr X’s request to refund the planning application fee. It says it is not for it to second guess the applicant’s decision to make a planning application. It also says there are very limited grounds under the Town and Country Planning Act when it can refund a planning application fee.

Assessment

8. I will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s planning application. This is because it is unlikely I would find fault by the Council.
9. I understand Mr X says the Council should have immediately noticed when the application was submitted that the proposal met the criteria for prior notification and contacted him. But it is not for the Council to question a person’s decision to make a planning application instead of following the prior notification process. I also agree the Council can only consider the application which has been submitted to it. In this case, Mr X submitted a planning application on Mr Y’s behalf. Therefore, it is unlikely I could say it was fault for the Council to consider the planning application rather than telling Mr X he could use the prior notification process. Information about the criteria for prior notification is also available on the Council’s planning portal so Mr X could have been aware that the single storey extension was covered by the rules for prior notification. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault by the Council or say that it should refund the planning application fee.
10. Mr X has also complained about how the Council dealt with the complaint. He says it failed to respond within the required timeframes. However, the Ombudsman would not normally use public resources to consider more minor issues such as complaint handling if we have decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because he is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman