Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a prior approval application for the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council should not have granted prior approval for the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings as the proposal does not meet the requirements/tests under Class Q, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. Mrs X also says the Council delayed in responding to her subsequent complaint.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures in isolation, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue underlying the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including the Council’s complaint responses.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for this development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision, and we have no power to overturn it. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. If the Council has followed the correct process and had regard to the relevant planning issues, we cannot question its judgement on the proposal.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The Council conducted a site visit.
• The objections from local residents are summarised in the case officer’s report, and the report goes on to consider/weigh the evidence presented by the applicant and residents, as well as the Council’s own records.
• The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether the development accorded with the provisions of Class Q.
• The Council’s complaint responses provide further explanation of how the available evidence/information was assessed
8. And with reference to paragraph 3 above, as the Ombudsman is not investigating the decision on the prior approval application, we would not normally pursue the associated concerns about delay in the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the application, and we will not pursue the concerns about the subsequent complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman