Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved a prior approval application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly approved an application for prior approval for an agricultural barn. She says it has a negative impact on a protected view and listed buildings and gardens.
2. Ms X wants the Council to withdraw the approval. If this is not possible she wants a review of the size, location and construction of the barn to reduce the impact on the protected view, listed buildings and gardens. She also wants the Council to impose conditions to prevent the owner using the barn for non-agricultural purposes.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Prior approval applications apply where the development is, in principle, permitted development but the council needs to authorise certain parts of the work.
7. Prior approval restricts local planning authorities to assessing:
• whether the proposal falls within permitted development; and
• the impact of the proposed development on various issues, including siting and appearance.
8. The Council may not consider comments received from the public, including neighbours.
9. Ms X does not believe the application for the barn falls within the scope of permitted development. She also says the applicant supplied false information to support the application.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide the merits of a planning application or investigate the validity of information provided to support an application. We consider the way in which the Council made its decisions to approve of refuse an application. If we do not identify fault in the way the decisions were made, cannot criticise them.
11. In a recent appeal decision the Planning Inspector was satisfied the applicant has showed a need for a barn. The Council is entitled to give weight to the Inspector’s views on a previous application when determining the new one. It has confirmed it would be unreasonable to refuse the application for a barn on the basis there is no need for one, when the Inspector concluded the applicant had demonstrated such a need.
12. The information on the Council’s website shows having considered all information pertaining to prior approval applications, the Council considered the application met the requirements and then approved the prior approval application.
13. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision that the application met the requirements for prior approval and that I did not consider reports that the applicant provided false information. However, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council processed the application.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with a prior approval application to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot require the Council to withdraw the approval or impose retrospective conditions.
15. It is open to Ms X to report breaches of planning control if she believes the building is not being used as an agricultural barn.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman