Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for the change of use of a building. This is because any fault has not caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the change of use of a residential property. Mr B says the Council did not notify neighbouring properties or display a site notice.
2. Mr B is concerned about the impact on the highway and the amenity of his home. Mr B would like the Council to start the application process again to give residents the opportunity to have their say on the proposal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr B including the Council’s response to his complaint. I considered planning records available on the Council’s website.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council received a planning application for the change of use of a residential property.
8. The law required the Council to publicise this by either writing to adjoining properties or displaying a site notice. The Council decided to publicise the application by writing to adjoining properties. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
9. Mr B did not receive a letter. The Council says it generated the letters for posting but it no longer holds the data to confirm they were sent.
10. It is possible the Council did not send the letters. But it is also possible the letters were sent by the Council but not delivered by the postal service. From the information available, I cannot say it is more likely than not that Mr B or other residents did not receive these letters due to fault by the Council. Also, it is unlikely an investigation would help us make sound findings about what happened.
11. I also cannot say any fault affected the decision outcome. This is because the Council had to consider the application in line with the law and consider the impact on neighbours, whether objections were raised or not.
12. The Council’s case report shows it considered the application in line with its local development plan, relevant law and policy. It took account of material planning considerations, including the impact on residential amenity and the highway. And it gave reasons for its view that this was not affected by the change of use. Further it ignored irrelevant information, including concerns about the suitability of the operators and any alleged breach of restrictive covenants. These are not material planning considerations.
13. The Council decided the proposal was acceptable and granted planning permission. There is no information to suggest its decision was affected by fault. Therefore, any failure to send neighbour letters did not cause significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

14. For the above reasons we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman