Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered an application for Prior Approval to convert an agricultural building to residential properties. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to demand enough information from a planning application to ensure an application for prior approval falls within class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order.
2. He also says the Council failed:
• to ensure protected species will not be adversely affected by the proposal
• to show it fully considered the objections about the suitability of the access road; and
• failed to answer the questions put forward in his 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.

(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. Prior Approval (also known as Prior Notification) applies where the development is in principle permitted development, but the Local Planning Authority (LPA) must authorise certain parts of the work.
7. Those works needing prior approval are in the Order. The list includes some agricultural buildings, certain demolition, telecommunications installations and some changes of use. The LPA can only consider the works identified in the Town and Country (General Permitted Development)(England) Order when making its decision. It has no authority to control anything else.
8. In 2024, the Council refused a Prior Approval application to convert agricultural buildings to residential properties. The reasons for the refusal were:
• The Highway Authority objected to intensification of the access and lack of a speed survey.
• There was not enough information to show the remaining agricultural buildings on the site would not have an adverse impact on the life and well-being of future occupants.
• Officers decided there was not enough evidence to show the barn was suitable for conversion without the need for significant structural change or strengthening. This would take it outside the scope of class Q of permitted development.
• There was not enough information on biodiversity on the site.
9. The applicant put in a new prior approval application. This included a traffic survey and documentation about the likely impact of development on-site, protected species and habitats.
10. The report notes:
• The Highways Authority considered there was enough information to overcome their objection.
• The ecologist decided there was enough ecological information to decide the application.
• No buildings will be demolished therefore a bat roost survey is not needed.
• The sustainability of the site and the lack of sustainable transport cannot be considered as part of the application.
• The structural survey provided confirms the building and foundations are acceptable and the roof is to be retained.

The Council decided the application fell within the cope of class Q of permitted development order and granted prior approval.

11. Mr X complained about the decision. He asked multiple questions. From the Council’s responses to his complaint I consider it answered all the questions raised. It also correctly advised Mr X the responsibility for ensuring the development stays within the scope of the Prior Approval. If the work exceeds this, it may be subject to enforcement action.
12. The Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision on the application. Rather, our role is to review the process by which the decision was made. If the Council has followed the correct process and considered the relevant planning issues, we cannot question its judgement on the proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the prior approval application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman