Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to register an objection to a planning application. We do not consider the complainant suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his client Mrs Y. He says the Council failed to tell Mrs Y about her neighbour’s application for a retrospective change of use of their extension to holiday accommodation.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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

5. Mr X says the Council failed to tell Mrs Y about the planning application. However, as she arranged for Mr X to object to the application, I do not consider the alleged failure to have caused any significant injustice.
6. Mr X objected to the application on the following grounds:
• The original extension was not built according to plans.
• Conditions of the original planning permission were not discharged.
• No evidence of a consistent use over a 10-year period has been provided.
• The commercial use of the development has a significant detrimental impact on Mrs Y’s home; and
• Overshadowing and overlooking.
7. However, the application before the Council was for a change of use of the neighbour’s extension only. It was not to regularise any alleged breaches of planning control.
8. The failure to register Mrs Y’s objections to the planning application is fault. The Council has acknowledged this. However, the Planning Officer’s report on the proposal shows the Council considered the impact of the change of use on Mrs Y’s property. The Officer concluded the extension has been in place for more than ten years. It does not have any openings on the wall next to Mrs Y’s home, therefore there is no overlooking. Also no external changes are proposed and the scale of the holiday accommodation is appropriate with the site of the property.
9. As the Council considered the impact of the proposal on Mrs Y’s home I cannot say she has suffered a significant injustice because of the failure to register her objections to the planning application.
10. I understand Mr X raised other concerns about the neighbour’s failure to comply with the original planning permission for the extension granted in 2009. However, the application was for change of use only. Reports of a breach of planning control of the original planning permission are not material planning considerations for the retrospective application for a change of use.
11. If Mrs Y believes her neighbours are in breach of planning control she can report the breaches to the Council’s planning enforcement team. If she remains dissatisfied following the Council’s responses to her reports she can make a new complaint to the Ombudsman once she has exhausted the Council’s complaint procedure on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council did fail to register Mrs Y’s objection to her neighbour application for a change of use of their extension. However, as it considered the impact of the proposal on her property, I do not consider the failure to register her objection caused a significant personal injustice which warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman