Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission for a neighbour’s extension and annex. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:
• granted retrospective planning permission for a neighbour’s extension and annex based on undetailed plans;
• failed to consider that the materials used are different from those set out in the proposal and that the roof of the new building overhangs his property; and
• dealt with his individual complaints together and not separately.
2. Mr X says the neighbour’s extension and annex causes an overwhelming sense of enclosure and has led to a legal issue as the roof overhangs onto his property. He wants the retrospective panning permission to be rescinded, and for enforcement action to be taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s rear neighbour applied in 2023 for retrospective planning permission to extend their property and build a garden annex. The documents on the Council’s website show that neighbours objected, and that the Council considered the objections before granting planning permission. After complaining to the Council, Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
8. The Planning Officer’s report contained a summary of Mr X’s objections and the Officer considered the effect of the built extension and annex on the neighbouring properties. The report specifically referred to the dimensions of the roof at the boundary, the materials used for the roof, and size of the building.
9. Mr X says the block plans were incorrect. However, the report demonstrates the Planning Officer made a full assessment of the effect upon neighbouring development.
10. The report specifically noted the material used for the roof was different to that used on existing structures. However, the Planning Officer did not consider this to be unacceptable.
11. The Officer concluded that the changes to the previously approved scheme were not detrimental. Planning permission was granted. Therefore, the breaches of planning control are now regularised.
12. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. There is no evidence of fault in the decision-making process. Therefore, we cannot question the outcome.
13. Mr X says the Council dealt with all three of his complaints as one. We consider it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue. That limitation applies here.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman