Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we do not consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice, nor can we achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly approved a planning application which contained inaccurate information. He says the errors meant the public could not make correctly informed representations.
2. Mr X wants the Council to:
• revoke the planning permission
• review the planning process to ensure information presented to the public is accurate
• send written apologies to the neighbours explaining it did not correctly review the application before granting planning permission; and
• review all planning applications received in the last three years to check for a systemic problem.

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 or continue 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint concerns a planning application for a house in the road where he lives. The application is for a part one/part two side/rear extension and conversion of garage into habitable room.
7. On one of the application forms, the property is listed as having four bedrooms and in another as having six bedrooms. Mr X says this inconsistency meant people could not make informed representations.
8. However, the applications clearly describe the proposed extensions and garage conversions. It also correctly explained to Mr X that changes to the internal layout of a property do not require planning permission. It also correctly explained that use of a residential property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for up to six people does not require planning permission for change of use.
9. The planning officer’s report shows the Council considered objections it received about:
• loss of light
• the impact of the proposals on neighbour’s outlook
• the impact of the design on the character of the road and;
• the possible terracing effect.
10. As stated above, internal changes to the layout of the property do not require planning permission and there is no requirement on the Council to invite representations.
11. If the Council receives an application for change of use of the property to an HMO, the Council will consult the neighbours according to its Statement of Community Involvement.
12. The failure to spot the changes to the bedroom numbers on the application forms is unfortunate. However, we consider this does not affect the planning decision – it is clear what is being applied for in terms of external changes.
13. Mr X is not a direct neighbour to the application site. The direct neighbours were informed of the planning application and some objected. We do not consider the Council’s actions have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.
14. I understand Mr X wants the Council to revoke the planning permission and review all planning applications it received over the last three years. This is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We are satisfied the Council accurately described the proposed changes to the property which required planning permission.
• We do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice; and
• We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman