Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application relating to a pub adjacent to her property. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council failed to follow due process, procedure and diligence during the handling of a planning application made in connection with a pub adjacent to her property. She says the planned use of the pub’s garden will, in particular, impact negatively on her amenity.

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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B, including the Council’s responses to her complaint. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B lives adjacent to a pub where for many years part of the pub garden was used as a private garden and not for pub activities.
5. In 2019 the Council received a planning application for external and internal works to the pub, along with landscaping changes and alterations to the car park.
6. Ms B submitted her objections to the application. She was particularly concerned about the impact on her property by the newly proposed children’s play area to be sited in the pub garden. The application showed the play area would be sited close to her property in what had previously been part of the privately used pub garden. Subsequent changes to the site plan sought by the case officer located the play area further away from Ms B’s property.
7. Under delegated powers, rather than by committee, the Council decided to grant permission having concluded that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties. The Council attached various conditions to the permission, including those covering hours of use of the outside area and landscaping at the site, including play equipment.
8. Unhappy with the decision, Ms B complained to the Council. It explained the application would have only been brought before the Planning Committee had the Parish Council objected to the proposal against officer recommendation to grant permission and/or if the ward Councillor had called it in. It further explained that as the location of the play area within the grounds of the pub was lawful under the terms of the lawful use of the site as a pub, it had no formal control over the positioning of play equipment and the revised site plan, which did not require public consultation, had been an attempt by the case officer to address neighbours’ concerns. The Council concluded it had dealt with the application properly and did not uphold the complaint.

Assessment

9. The lawful use of the site adjacent to Ms B’s home allows for a pub to be run from it and the owners did not need planning permission for this. They could have used any part of the garden, including those parts which had previously been kept for private use, without the need for planning permission. However, as there were changes the owners wanted to make which did require planning permission, this allowed the Council the opportunity to include some control measures over matters such as hours of operation and landscaping. The case officer sought, by means of the revised plan, to move the play area further back away from Ms B’s property but it did not have to reconsult on this.
10. Ms B has also complained about the Council’s handling of her complaint. While I note its final response did not include reference to the option of Ms B complaining on to the Ombudsman, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds to warrant an investigation into these subsidiary matters.
11. Ms B says for over 20 years part of the pub garden near their property was used as private garden and not for pub activities. However, this does not mean that such use is now excluded. The Council has said it is not aware of any restriction which would prevent any part of the site being specifically excluded from use and I have not seen any evidence which would support an exclusion.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman