Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning approval and enforcement over a neighbouring extension. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s planning approval for his neighbour’s extension and its failure to take action over breaches of planning approval. He wants the Council to take action and to compensate him for his loss of amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about the Council approving a planning application for a neighbour’s extension which he says affects the amenity of his home. The Council originally dismissed an application for approval of the extension as permitted development, and it required a planning application. Mr X and other neighbours and consultees were given an opportunity to object which they did.
8. The extension required a further retrospective application when the works and the plans were not found to be accurate. Again, comments and objections were invited. The Council decide to approve the plans despite Mr X and the local parish council making objections.
9. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body and question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. In this case the Council gave proper regard to the material planning considerations.
10. Following a complaint by Mr X that the completed work was in breach of the planning approval, the Council opened an enforcement case. Its officers visited the site and advised the neighbour of planning beaches and what action was required. The case is ongoing and we cannot comment on any outcome from this.

Back to top

Final decision

We should not investigate this complaint about planning approval and enforcement over a neighbouring extension. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman