Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Nor has the alleged fault caused Mr Q or his heritage society a significant injustice. In addition, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr Q, complained on behalf of a local heritage society about Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling. In particular, he complained

• the Planning Committee meeting did not address the issues raised, including several planning policies which the application contravened; and
• it accepted inaccurate statements as fact.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered information available on the Council’s website. I watched the recording of the Planning Committee meeting where the planning application was debated and approved. I considered a decision we made on a previous complaint from Mr Q about the same barn. And I invited Mr Q to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. The Council granted permission for a Prior Approval application for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling. This was the subject of Mr Q’s previous complaint to us. We decided the Council’s alleged faults in the handling of that application did not cause the local heritage society a significant injustice, as the nearest “neighbour” to the building is approximately 600 metres away.

What happened

5. The Council received a planning application for a change of use of a barn to a dwelling. The proposed works went beyond those previously permitted by the Prior Approval application.
6. The case officer recommended approval of the application. The Council’s Planning Committee considered it. Mr Q spoke at the Committee meeting saying why it should refuse the application. During the debate that followed, at least two Committee Members said the application contravened numerous planning policies, among other things. One of the Members proposed to refuse the application, but this lost the vote. The Committee later voted, by a narrow majority, in favour of approving the application.
7. Mr Q said the Council’s handling of this application means he can no longer rely on its Planning Department. Nor can he enjoy his walks past the barn knowing its heritage has been destroyed. Mr Q wants the planning approval revoked and for the officers involved to be sanctioned and retrained.

Assessment

8. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. I watched the Planning Committee’s robust debate on the application. It was clear some Members were unconvinced by the case put forward for approving the application and thought it contravened many planning policies. Despite this, Members voted, by a narrow majority, to grant permission. Having taken account of the available information, I think it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council in the way it considered and approved the application.
10. In any event, the fact remains that the building is approximately 600 metres from the nearest “neighbour”. I recognise Mr Q’s enjoyment of his walks may be diminished. But, even if the Council was at fault in the way alleged, the injustice suffered by Mr Q and his heritage society is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
11. In addition, we have no power to revoke the planning approval or to have officers sanctioned. So we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman