Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for a development near the complainant’s home. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with an application for a development near his home. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper processes and the application was not properly publicised. Mr X says the new agricultural building is in direct view of his home and will impact the value of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. 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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In certain circumstances someone can erect, extend or alter an agricultural building using their permitted development rights. The development must be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. Before any work can start the developer must also apply to the local planning authority so it can determine if prior approval is needed with regards to the sitting, design and external appearance of the proposed building.
6. In this case, the Council decided prior approval was needed and approval was granted subject to conditions.
7. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the acceptability of the development before approving the application. The case officer’s report said the location and design of the building would not adversely affect the amenity of the area. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgment to decide the application was acceptable and the Ombudsman cannot question this decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, in line with the requirements of the General Permitted Development Order, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Mr X has also complained the proposal was not properly publicised. He says he did not receive a letter advising him about the application and the site notice was erected on a country road that he does not use. However, it was the responsibility of the applicant to erect a site notice on or near the application site after it was decided prior approval was needed. As the application was publicised as required, it is unlikely I could find fault. Furthermore, even if I could say the application was not publicised as it should have been, I could not say Mr X was caused any significant injustice as the Council did still properly consider the acceptability of the development before granting prior approval. Therefore, it is likely the planning decision would have been the same had Mr X known about the application and objected.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman