Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a development in the area where he lives. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained the Council incorrectly said a development in the area where he lives is permitted development. Mr X believes the Council has misinterpreted the law and says he has been denied the opportunity to participate in the planning process and comment on an application for the development.

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 Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Not all development needs planning permission from local planning authorities. Certain developments are deemed permitted, providing they fall within limits set within regulations. This type of development is known as ‘permitted development’.
6. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development. These applications are known as ‘prior approval’ applications.
7. Mr X has complained about a development in the area where he lives and says the developer should have applied for prior approval. The Council says the works are permitted development and there was no need for an application. It says if it took enforcement action against the developer it would not realistically succeed.
8. Mr X says other planning authorities have taken different approaches to similar developments. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered if a prior approval application was necessary for the development. It sought legal advice and explained why the work carried out was permitted development. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered if a prior approval application was needed, it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman