Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X has complained about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. She says the proper processes were not followed as the Council failed to consult the required statutory consultees. Ms X says the development will have a significant impact on local people and the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
3. We 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)

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. Someone can demolish a building without applying for formal planning permission in certain circumstances. Before carrying out the work, an application must be made to the local planning authority so it can decide if prior approval is needed for the required method of demolition and the proposed restoration of the site.
7. In this case, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application, in line with the relevant legislation, before deciding that prior approval was not required.
8. Ms X says the Council failed to contact the necessary statutory consultees for their comments before giving consent for the development. However, I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the application against the relevant criteria in the General Permitted Development Order and there was no requirement for it to carry out further consultation in addition to the requirements in the Order.
9. I understand Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to give consent for the development. But it was entitled to use its professional judgement and the case officer’s report explains why the proposal is acceptable and how it complies with the necessary requirements. The Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decision unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered the application, it is unlikely we could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman