Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that an Officer misled the Council’s Planning Committee by using a pre-application drawing of a bungalow instead of a dormer bungalow. The application was refused and therefore the complainant has not suffered any injustice as a result. Nor have I seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered multiple reports of breaches of planning control.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr B, says an Officer misled the Planning Committee when showing a pre-application drawing for a single storey bungalow in support of an application for a dormer bungalow.
2. Mr B also complains:
• the Council failed to monitor the development to ensure the developer was following the approved plans and conditions; and
• the Council refused to respond to Mr B and his neighbours forcing them to engage a planning agent to represent them
3. Mr B wants the Council to offer a planning service to neighbours, not just to developers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council granted planning permission for a single storey bungalow on land behind Mr B’s home.
8. During the build, Mr B and his neighbours reported several breaches of planning control to the Council.
9. The Council’s records show it visited the site after each report of a planning breach. Of the five breaches reported, the Council found no breach on three occasions. On one report of noisy work taking place before 7.30am it decided it was not expedient to take enforcement action. This was because the Council’s Environmental Health department had served notice imposing requirements to restrict hours of noisy working until the development was fully complete.
10. The remaining reported breach of planning control was that the roof ridge was higher than stated in the approved plans. The Council visited the site. It confirms the ridge is 0.2 metres higher than approved. However, the eaves are at the correct height and in the correct location. The Council decided not to take further action as it did not consider the increased height caused sufficient harm. Having visited the site and considered the matter, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
11. The developer then applied to regularise part of what had been built on the site and to change the building from a single storey bungalow to a dormer bungalow with rooms in the roof.
12. Mr B complains a planning officer misled the committee by using a pre-application drawing of a single storey building to support the application for a dormer bungalow. However, the Council refused the application. Therefore, Mr B did not suffer any injustice because of the use of the drawing.
13. The Council has confirmed the developer has missed the timeframe for appealing against the refusal of the application for a dormer bungalow. Therefore, the decision stands. However, the developer has indicated a further application will be submitted to amend the current approval.
14. The Council cannot refuse to accept a valid planning application. It is required to consider the applications which are made. Mr B will have the opportunity to comment on any future applications made for the site.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• I do not consider that Mr B suffered any injustice because of the presentation of the pre-application drawing to the planning committee. The application was refused.
• From the information I have seen the Council responded to reports of breaches of planning control and explained the reasons for the actions it has taken.
• The Council must publicise all planning applications inviting ‘representations’ for or against the application and explain how those representations may be made. The opportunity to make representations is not the same as being consulted. The authority must consider all material representations it receives but officers will not enter a dialogue with members of the public who have objected to a planning application. There is no requirement for a local planning authority to provide an advisory service for people who object to planning applications, or who live near development sites.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman