Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his planning and ‘Sustainable Warmth’ scheme applications. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council delayed in dealing with his planning application for replacement windows he applied for under a government grant. He also complains that because his property is in a conservation area the Council requested information from him as part of the planning application which others have not had to provide. He believes the Council’s enforcement of the rules concerning the conservation area in his case is not consistent with its general approach to development in the conservation area as a whole.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

5. Mr X applied for replacement windows under the Sustainable Warmth scheme offered by the government, with the Council handling and determining applications. However, because Mr X’s property is in a conservation area Mr X is required to apply for planning permission for development which would not normally need it, such as replacing his windows.
6. The Council suggested Mr X obtain pre-application advice to advise him on the likelihood of success but its advice stated it was not likely to grant planning permission. It provided a list of documents Mr X would need to include with any formal application, which included scale drawings of his property. Mr X then applied for planning permission but did not provide all the documents listed in the Council’s pre-application advice, including the drawings. The Council did not therefore validate his application immediately and only began to consider it once it received the necessary information, several months later. This is in accordance with national validation requirements and is not fault.
7. There are set timescales for determining planning applications and these require councils to determine applications for minor development, such as in this case, within eight weeks.
8. The Council reached a view early-on in the application process that the replacement windows Mr X wanted were not acceptable and that it would not therefore grant planning permission for them. It says it was on course to determine Mr X’s application within eight weeks until Mr X spoke to his local councillor and they ‘called in’ the application. This meant that the Council’s planning committee determined the application, rather than planning officers.
9. Unfortunately for Mr X the next available committee meeting took place after the deadline for approving applications for the Sustainable Warmth scheme. The Council says it sought approval from the government to extend the deadline for deciding the application but it refused. This meant that regardless of the Council’s decision on Mr X’s planning application it could not approve his application for funding under the Sustainable Warmth Scheme.
10. The committee decided to grant planning permission, against the planning officer’s recommendation, but by this point the scheme had closed. Mr X is therefore unhappy that he is not able to claim for the cost of his replacement windows.

Analysis

11. We will not investigate whether the Council’s insistence that Mr X apply for planning permission for his replacement windows, or its requirements for information as part of his planning application, was consistent with its approach to development in the conservation area as a whole. This is because its actions in other cases does not concern Mr X or cause him significant injustice. The question for us is whether there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s case to warrant further investigation.
12. It is unfortunate that the Council did not grant planning permission for the replacement windows before the deadline for awarding grants under the Sustainable Warmth scheme but I have seen nothing to show this was the result of any fault.
13. There are two clear periods of delay which contributed to Mr X missing the deadline but these stem from his application not containing all the information required for the Council to determine the application and his councillor calling the application in to the planning committee, rather than any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman