Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the grant of planning permission to a neighbour of Ms X as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to consider her amenity and access when granting planning permission for an outbuilding next to her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a first storey extension to an existing outbuilding in March 2023. This followed a previous grant of planning permission by a Planning Inspector for the same building.
6. The Planning Officer noted the objections from Ms X to the planning application, which included concerns about access to her property.
7. The Planning Officer concluded that the distance of the building to Ms X’s house meant that there was no significant impact on her amenity. The windows proposed were conditioned to ensure they were obscure glazed.
8. The Planning Officer concluded that the new planning application would make the access way better than that which had been approved by the Planning Inspector.
9. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint against the Planning Inspector’s previous decision.
10. The Council’s decision had to take account of the decision of the Planning Inspector (as the applicant could appeal again against a negative decision).
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the planning application, and the information it took account of when deciding to grant planning permission. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
13. Any boundary dispute is a private matter and not for the Council or the Ombudsman.
14. Ms X disagrees with the conclusions of the Planning Officer but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot question them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman