Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a planning decision. This is because it is unlikely investigation would add to the Council’s findings or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained that the Council wrongly described a planning application, gave him incorrect and unclear information and wrongly approved the application. He said that as a result his own property has suffered a loss of light.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council about the complaint. I also invited Mr X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for an extension in 2016. The Council informed Mr X by letter about the proposed works, which it described as a rear extension with maximum eaves height of 3m. The letter said that if no objections were received, no assessment of the impact on Mr X’s property would be carried out. Mr X did not object at the time and the Council approved the application. When works started in 2018 Mr X contacted the Council to complain that a side extension was being built, infilling a space next to his boundary.
5. Mr X believed these works were a “side extension” and therefore not included in the approved plans for a rear extension. However, under Government guidance where a property is stepped, as the rear of the neighbouring property was, each wall of the step is considered to be the rear wall of the original house. Therefore the infill extension along Mr X’s boundary was correctly described as a rear extension rather than a side extension.
6. Following Mr X’s complaint a Council officer visited the site and discovered that the rear extension under construction was 12m long when permission had been given for 6m. The Council told the neighbour to reduce the extension’s length. Mr X told us the officer also advised him at this time that the “side extension” was not part of the approved plans and that the boundary wall would be kept at 2m high. Mr X contacted the Council again in 2019. In her response, the Council officer referred to a reduction in the “side extension”. Mr X took this to mean that the infill extension had been removed. He complained to the Council again after construction was complete. He asked for the extension to be removed and the boundary returned to a height of 2m.
7. Mr X complained that the works along his boundary did not fall within the description of a “rear extension” used by the council in its letter. He said he had not objected to the works in 2016 because of the Council’s incorrect description and that there had been no plans online for him to see. He also complained of incorrect and confusing information from the council officer.
8. The Council said that Mr X and the officer were at cross purposes. It said Mr X had understood the officer to be referring to the infill area, when she had actually been referring to the length of the whole extension. The Council also told Mr X the extension had been correctly approved, that the description used in the letter complied with Government guidance and that Mr X could have requested sight of the plans.

Back to top

Assessment

9. In my view the Council was not at fault in describing the extension in the way it did. Mr X was offered the opportunity to object in 2016 and did not do so. I can see no evidence of fault in the Council’s approval of the extension and the Ombudsman is not in a position to order the extension’s removal. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaints and has taken action in respect of a planning breach. It is unlikely that investigation by the Ombudsman would produce a different result or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s findings or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman