Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an application for prior approval. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. The complainant has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, has complained about how the Council dealt with her neighbour’s prior approval application. Miss X says the Council lost her objections and did not consider her concerns before granting permission for the development. Miss X also says the Council would not allow her to speak at the planning committee meeting. Miss X says the development will have a significant impact on her 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Between permitted development (which does not require planning permission) and a full planning application, there is a third process called prior notification or prior approval. This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work. The council will notify the residents of neighbouring properties when it receives a prior notification application, and they can object if they believe the development will harm their amenity. The council must then decide if the impact is acceptable.
5. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the acceptability of the development, including the impact on neighbouring properties, before granting permission for the extension. The case officer’s report referred to Miss X’s objections and addressed her concerns. However, the officer decided that any harm caused to Miss X’s home would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.
6. Miss X says the Council lost her objections and there has been considerable disruption while the extension is being built. But Miss X’s objections were summarised in the officer’s report and disruption caused during construction of the development is not a material planning matter.
7. I understand Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve the application. But the Council was entitled to use its 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, it is unlikely I could find fault.
8. Miss X has also raised concerns about the Council’s planning committee meeting and says she was not allowed to speak during the meeting. But the Council’s rules for speaking at meetings say requests must be made in writing at least four days before the meeting. I understand Miss X says the Council failed to tell her about the committee meeting. But even if I could say the Council was at fault for not letting Miss X speak, I do not consider she has suffered significant injustice as a result. Miss X’s comments were listed in the committee report, so members were aware of her concerns. Therefore, it is likely the decision to approve the application would have been the same had Miss X had the opportunity to speak at the committee meeting.
9. Miss X has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council. Miss X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to her concerns about speaking at the planning committee meeting.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman