Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for the conversion of a house near the complainant into two dwellings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have approved a planning application for the conversion of a house into two dwellings, as this goes against a condition attached to a previous permission for extensions to the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman can investigate 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• the complaint correspondence, provided by Mr X and the Council,
• information about the planning application available on the Council’s website,
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for this development. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against that decision. Rather, we consider if there is evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. If there is insufficient evidence of fault, we cannot question the Council’s decision.
6. I find there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this application to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The condition on the previous planning permission, which restricted the use of the extensions, does not prevent a planning application for an alternative use being submitted and assessed in the future.
• The Council publicised the application in accordance with the statutory requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
• The objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated report in the usual way.
• The Council’s Planning Policy and Highways teams did not objection to the proposal.
• The delegated report goes on to assess the complaint against the relevant material planning considerations. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement that the proposal was acceptable, even if Mr X holds a different view.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman