Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a Prior Notification application. We do not consider that any fault has caused significant injustice to the person who complained.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X is a planning consultant. He says the Council was inconsistent when it refused his clients Prior Notification application to convert a barn to 2 homes.
2. Mr X says his client has accused him of professional negligence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Between permitted development (which does not require planning permission) and a planning application there is a third process - Prior Notification (also known as Prior Approval). This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development, but the council must authorise certain elements of the work.
7. The purpose of the procedure is to ‘fast track’ acceptable development but give councils limited control to regulate more controversial development.
8. Mr X says the Council required information on flood evacuation before refusing the application. But it did not require the same information for a similar application nearby.
9. Mr X submitted Prior Notification application for a client. The Case Officer report sets out the Council’s consideration and explains the reasons for refusal which were:
• The level of building operations needed for the proposed development goes beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the buildings to residential use; and
• The prior notification application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would provide an adequate standard of residential accommodation in relation to flooding risks, including a failure to demonstrate that safe access and egress to and from the site could be achieved at times of flooding.

The

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate @’s complaint because @

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman