Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved an application for the change of use of the house next to the complainant’s home to a house in multiple occupation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application. And, as the Council has now responded to all concerns raised by the complainant, further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to consider its decision to refuse an earlier planning application when it approved a subsequent application to change the house next to her home into a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).
2. She says the Council should have considered the impact of the proposal on her amenity. Ms X also complains the Council failed to fully respond to her complaint.

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
• Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Between permitted development – which does not require planning permission – and a planning application there is a third process – Prior Notification. This is also known as Prior Approval. This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development, but the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must authorise certain elements of the work.
7. The Council received an application for a Prior Approval for a single storey rear extension to the house next to Ms X’s home.
8. The Council considered the proposed extension would have a significant adverse impact on Ms X’s home and refused the application.
9. The neighbour then decided to extend the property by building a rear extension, a rear dormer and rooflights. These changes are permitted development and do not require planning permission.
10. The Council received an application from the neighbour to change the use of the property from a single residential home to an HMO. It publicised the application. Ms X and others objected to the proposal.
11. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. This includes a summary of the objections received. It also explains the Council can only consider the proposal for change of use, it cannot consider the impact of the extensions to the property as these are permitted development and do not require planning permission.
12. The report details the relevant national and local planning policies. It also outlines the objections received, including the impact of an HMO on the neighbour’s amenity. It outlines why the planning officer considers the proposal overcomes the objections.
13. The application was considered by the Council’s planning committee. Ms X’s representative spoke to the committee outlining her objections. The committee also heard from other members of the public and two ward councillors who also objected to the application.
14. The approved minutes of the meeting show committee members debated the application before deciding to approve the change of use of the property to an HMO.
15. Having viewed the planning officer report, the information available on the Council’s website, and the meeting minutes, I am satisfied the committee members were fully aware of what was being proposed and considered the objections it received before making its decision. As there is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision.
16. Ms X complained to the Council. It failed to respond to all points she raised. This failure forms part of Ms X’s complaint to us. However, in response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged this failure and directly responded to the outstanding points and apologised for the delay. I consider further investigation of this point will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application; and
• further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman