Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of a prior notification application. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Authority has caused the complainant a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Authority failed to follow procedure when determining a prior notification application, as it did not obtain sufficiently detailed information about the wider agricultural unit that the development relates to.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, we can 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X.
• information about the application, as available on the Authority’s planning website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X might be disappointed by the Authority’s decision on the prior notification application. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the decision was made, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault in the handling of the application has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the Authority was entitled to reach a professional judgement on whether the application form, submitted plans and supporting statements contained sufficient information to enable it to determine the application.
• the applicant had signed a declaration confirming any facts stated were true and accurate, and the Authority was entitled to accept this in good faith.
• the officer’s report sets out the Authority’s assessment of the proposal against the permitted development criteria.
• if Mr X has evidence that the proposal does not meet the permitted development criteria, it is open to him to submit this to the Authority, and it may decide what action to take.
• the building is located over 50m from Mr X’s property, and the officer report notes it would be viewed in the context of other agricultural buildings. The report also says the site is partially screened along all highway boundaries by vegetation. On balance, and with reference to paragraph 5 above, I have seen nothing to suggest Mr X is caused a significant personal injustice by the way the application was determined, or by the building itself.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Authority has caused him a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman