Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a retrospective planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consult when a homeowner changed their planning application.
2. He wants the planning permission revoked and the application process rerun. If this is not possible he wants the Council to admit it should have consulted neighbours on the amended proposal.

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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and information available on the Council’s website.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a report that a homeowner had developed their property without planning permission. This was in contravention of an Article 4 Direction which removed permitted development rights.
7. The Council’s planning enforcement officer visited the site. They encouraged the owner to put in a retrospective planning application to regularise what had been built.
8. The owner applied for retrospective permission and included a proposal to lower the built structure in the rear garden.
9. The Council publicised the application and several members of the public objected including Mr X. One of Mr X’s objections was:

“While reducing the height of the unauthorised side and rear lean-to would slightly reduce its adverse visual impact, the inappropriateness of the part of the structure that is visible from [XXX] is unresolved.”

10. The Council’s Conservation Officer made the following objection:

“Objection regarding the side extension appearing out of context with the traditional characteristics of the Conservation Area.”

11. Before the planning officer prepared a report of the scheme, the owner changed their mind. They decided not to lower the side and rear structure and presented new plans to show the structure as built.
12. The Government has published guidance on re-consultation after a planning application has been amended. This says:

“Where an application has been amended it is up to the local planning authority to decide whether further publicity and consultation is necessary in the interests of fairness. In deciding what further steps may be required local planning authorities should consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended.”

13. In this case the Planning Officer noted the built structure was 0.5m higher than the original planning application which was to lower the structure. They decided not to reconsult. The Council says the original complaints about a breach of planning control were about the height of the as built development. Also the objections from the Conservation Officer and members of the public (including Mr X) included concerns about the height of the structure even when lowered.
14. The Planning Officer prepared a report of the scheme. This includes:
• a summary of all the objections to the application (including those from Mr X and the parish council)
• what legislation has applied to the case; and
• why the officer has made their recommendation to approve the application.
15. The Officer decided what was built has a less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is not unacceptable. This a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make.
16. Following the recommendation to approve the application, the Council granted planning permission under its scheme of delegation.

Mr X also complains there is an error in the Planning Officer’s report. The report refers to existing render to the rear of the property. The Council acknowledges this is wrong as the rear of the property was not previously rendered. However, the Council is satisfied this is to the rear of the property and is not visible in the street scene and no harm is noted. Also, the Conservation Officer had no objections to the rendering. In response to this part of the complaint the Council apologised for the error. It also confirmed this point did not contribute to the final decision to approve the application for the development as built.

17. I understand Mr X believes the Council should have reconsulted when it received the new plans which did not include lowering the built structure. However, the Government guidance outlines the actions local planning authorities can take in such circumstances. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to follow the guidance. Also, the Ombudsman must consider whether any fault has caused a significant personal injustice to the complainant.
18. In this case, Mr X says the integrity of a conservation area is at stake. However, planning applications for a site subject to an Article 4 Direction must still be considered on their merits. Removing permitted development rights does not stop or mean a council cannot grant planning permission development of the site. Mr X’s property does not suffer from a detrimental impact because of the development. While I understand his concerns, I do not consider he has suffered a significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to reconsult following receipt of amended plans prior to deciding to grant planning permission; and
• we do not consider Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which justifies an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman