The Ombudsman's final decision
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
Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with a prior approval application. He says he was not notified about the application and the extension will have a significant impact on his property.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Householders whose properties have permitted development rights can build larger, single storey rear extensions using the prior notification process. The householder must tell the planning authority what their plans are and provide the authority with the addresses of the adjoining neighbours. The neighbouring residents will be notified and may object to the proposal if they consider it will harm their amenity. The planning authority then must consider if the impact is acceptable.
The Council received a prior notification application from Mr X’s neighbour. The Council did not receive any objections from neighbouring residents and decided no prior approval was required as the proposed extension met the requirements in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order.
Mr X says the Council failed to tell him about the application and says his property is significantly impacted by the development. However, the Council has provided evidence to show a notification letter was produced for Mr X’s address. I do not know why Mr X did not receive this letter. But the Council does not need to show proof of delivery, and I am satisfied it is more likely than not the letter was sent. Therefore, it is unlikely I could find fault with how the Council publicised the application. I understand Mr X says the development overlooks his property. But as the Council did not receive any objections from neighbouring residents, it did not need to consider matters such as the impact on neighbouring amenity.
Mr X says his home will lose value and his property has been damaged. However, loss of value is not a material planning matter and concerns about property damage will be a private civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour.
The Council has also considered Mr X’s concerns about a possible breach of planning control. However, it decided there had not been a breach and therefore it had no grounds to take further action. The Council was entitled to use its professional judgment in this regard.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman