The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s action which caused the complainant significant personal injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs J, complains the Council: Failed to give guidance on the planning process Failed to tell her about a planning application until three weeks after it was received; and Failed to consider her objections
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs J including the Council’s responses. And information about the applications available on the Council’s website.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Between permitted development (which does not require planning permission) and a full planning application, there is a third process called prior notification. Also known as prior approval. This applies where the development is, in principle, permitted development, but the council needs to authorise certain elements of the work.
The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) sets out the developments eligible for prior notification rights. The Council can only consider the elements identified in the order when making its decision.
Mrs J’s neighbour sought to enlarge their property by adding a large single storey extension.
Under the Prior Approval process the applicant must tell the Local Planning Authority (LPA) what their plans are and give the LPA the addresses of any adjoining neighbours. The LPA will then tell the neighbours. Neighbours may object but only if it will harm their amenity, in which case the LPA must decide if the impact is acceptable.
This was not a full planning application and therefore the Council could not consider Mrs J’s objections which incuding (but not limited to): Overdevelopment of the site Out of character with the street scene Precedent; and Design Mrs J X also refers to the Right to Light Act. But right to light is not a planning consideration and will instead be a private matter between her and her neighbour. Also, there is no requirement for councils to visit neighbouring properties before deciding an application.
I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the application in line with the GPDO requirements before granting Prior Approval. The Council’s decision shows it considered Mrs J’s objections and the impact on her property, including the impact on loss of light and privacy, before deciding there would not be an unacceptable impact. I understand Mrs J disagrees, but the case officer was entitled to use their professional judgement.
As the Council properly considered the prior approval application it is unlikely I could find fault.
Mrs J also complains the Council failed to tell her about her neighbour’s full planning application until three weeks after it received it. However, the purpose of notification is to enable interested parties to comment. Mrs J has objected to the planning application; therefore, she has not suffered any injustice.
The Council has no statutory duty to provide advice to neighbours of those who have made planning applications. Therefore, I cannot find fault if it did not provide advice to Mrs J.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs J’s complaint because: There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the way the Council processed the Prior Approval Application.
She has not suffered any injustice because of the Council’s delay in telling her about the undecided planning application.
The Council has no duty to provide her with planning advice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman