Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application for an agricultural development near his home. Mr X says the decision to approve the application was based on incorrect information and the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order were not met. Mr X says permission would not have been granted had the Council carried out the necessary research.

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 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. (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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In certain circumstances someone can erect an agricultural building using their permitted development rights. Before any work can start the developer must apply to the local planning authority so it can determine if prior approval is needed for the sitting, design and external appearance of the proposed building.
6. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with the prior approval application for agricultural buildings near his home. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application before granting prior approval. The case officer considered the proposal against the criteria set out in the General Permitted Development Order and explained why the development would comply. An enforcement officer has also visited the site and confirmed the development is being carried out in line with the approved plans and there is no evidence to show unauthorised activities are taking place.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees. But the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely I would find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman