Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an outbuilding. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the proposal, and the Council has apologised for the failure to respond to the complainant’s telephone calls/messages.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed to properly consider his neighbour’s planning application for an outbuilding. In particular, Mr B says:
• The outbuilding does not meet permitted development rules/guidance;
• There were errors in the case officer’s report;
• The impact on his amenity has not been properly considered;
• The case officer failed to reply to telephone calls/voicemail messages.

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. We 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
• the Council has already taken, or proposed to take, satisfactory action to address the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)

3. And we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• Mr B’s complaint to the Ombudsman;
• The Council’s final response to Mr B’s complaint;
• Information about the planning application, including the case officer’s report, on the Council’s website.
5. I also gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain development to be carried out without making a planning application to the council as local planning authority. Each type of permitted development right has certain conditions and limitations. If a development does not meet all the relevant criteria, then a planning application is required. The Council will then assess the proposal against relevant planning policies, and any other material planning considerations.
7. So, even though a proposed development may not meet the permitted development criteria, this does not prevent a Council from approving a planning application for that development.

Assessment

8. I appreciate Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman cannot question that decision unless there is evidence of administrative fault in the way it was made.
9. The Council has accepted there were some errors in the case officer’s report, including:
• Incorrectly stating that a site notice had been displayed;
• Incorrectly referring to the applicant’s house number, instead of Mr B’s, when considering the objections;
• Incorrectly stating the applicant has no off-street parking.
10. However, I do not see that these errors have affected or influenced the way the planning merits, or otherwise, of the proposed outbuilding were assessed.
11. In that regard, I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the proposal to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further. In reaching this view, I am particularly mindful that:
• the case officer visited the application site;
• Mr B’s objections are summarised in the case officer’s report, so they have been taken into account; and,
• The report goes on to assess whether the impact of the outbuilding on Mr B’s amenity was so significant as to warrant refusal. The case officer was entitled to reach his own professional judgement on this issue.
12. Finally, I note the Council has apologised for the lack of response to Mr B’s telephone calls and voicemail messages. As there is no requirement to enter into discussions or negotiations with objectors to a planning application, I consider the Council’s apology is a satisfactory way to address this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning application, and the Council has satisfactorily addressed the failure to return Mr B’s calls.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman