The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a prior approval application to change an agricultural building to homes. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council ignored objections when it approved an application for prior approval to change an agricultural building to four homes. Mr X says the proposal does not meet the requirements of Class Q, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. He also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint.
Mr X wants the prior approval permission withdrawn
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the main issue underlying the complaint.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant prior approval for this development. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision, and we have no power to overturn it. Rather we review the process followed to reach the decision. If the Council has followed the correct process and considered the relevant planning issues, we cannot question its judgement on the proposal.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was approved to justify the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am aware that: the Council conducted a site visit a summary of the objections from residents is in the case officer’s report the report considers the evidence presented and the Council’s own records the Council is entitled to reach its own professional judgement about whether the development accords with the terms of Class Q.
The Council’s complaint responses also provide further explanation of how the officers made their recommendations.
Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaints procedure. He says it is not independent as the stage one response repeated the planning officer’s statement and the stage two response was made by the Head of Service whose responsibilities include the planning department.
The Council’s adopted complaints procedure has three stages: the relevant service deals with the informal stage a customer care officer who will investigate at stage one with a suitable Council officer; and the Chief Executive who will assign complaints to a suitable manager at stage two.
As the Ombudsman is not investigating the decision on the prior approval application, we would not normally pursue the associated concerns about delay in the Council’s complaints process in isolation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman