Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s granting planning permission for his neighbour’s extension, its decision not to take enforcement action, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in its enforcement decision process to warrant an investigation. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating. We do not investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a house whose owner received planning permission for a side and rear extension in 2024. He complains the Council:
1. approved plans which were misleading and did not show the true position or scale of the development;
2. failed to apply its own design criteria on minimum side separation distances;
3. relied on plans with added measurements, not the approved plans;
4. has refused to take enforcement action or investigate properly despite breaches of the approved plans and of the Council's design guidance;
5. handled his complaint in a biased way, not taking account of his evidence.
2. Mr X says the Council’s handling of the 2024 application meant he was denied the opportunity to make informed objections and properly engage in the planning process. He says the extension as built sits very close to his home, resulting in loss of privacy, loss of light, and constant noise and disturbance. Mr X says overlooking windows directly face his property. He says the narrow gap amplifies sound and vibration and restricts access to the rear garden, affecting his enjoyment of it. Mr X says the development is not in keeping with the area. He says he has suffered much stress, expense, and disruption, and the matter has affected relations with his neighbours.

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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is a disagreement between Mr X and the Council about the separation distance between the development’s flank wall and the boundary as permitted in 2024, and as shown in the application plans. Mr X considers the plans showed that distance would be 1.8 metres. The Council says the approved plans showed the distance to be 1.2 metres at the front, reducing to about one metre to the rear.
7. We are not an appeal body. We may criticise a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making and but for that fault a different decision would have been made.
8. In response to Mr X’s reports, the Council reviewed the planning file and visited the site. Officers noted the development plans as permitted included scaled drawings of the extension. They used the scale to determine the separation distances which had been permitted in 2024, as mentioned in the officer’s planning report, were 1.2 metres reducing to one metre. We note Mr X complains officers added these measurements to the plans. But both planning and enforcement officers calculated them using scaled drawings provided with the application. We note an overhead plan of the development showing Mr X’s property suggested the separation distances for his house and the new development in relation to the shared boundary would be similar. But details of properties which are not part of a development site, such as a neighbouring property, may not always be shown accurately in documents. The accuracy was required for planning purposes in the depiction of the proposed development and its relationship with the site boundary. Officers used the development plans and their as-built measurements to decide it had been constructed in line with the approved plans.
9. In dealing with Mr X’s report of a planning breach, officers gathered relevant information from the approved plans and the site to decide not to enforce. That was a decision officers were entitled to take. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant an investigation.
10. Even if there had been fault by the Council here, we would not investigate. Mr X says he was denied the opportunity to make informed objections against his neighbour’s planning application. He said the plans misled him to believe the extension would be at the same distance to the shared boundary as his property. Mr X lodged objections to the proposed development’s size and location. He raised material planning concerns including loss of privacy, amenity and light. These were considered by officers during the planning application process. Mr X may have made his objections in the belief the extension would be the same distance from the shared boundary as his house. But officers were aware of the extension’s location and used their understanding of the scaled plans to reach their planning decision on privacy and amenity issues. We cannot say the planning outcome would have been any different if Mr X had understood the development was closer to the boundary and had made different objections. Mr X had his material planning concerns considered by officers so was not caused a significant personal injustice by any misunderstanding he had about the plans.
11. In his complaint to us, Mr X claims an impact of the extension being closer to the boundary is that it affects his access to and enjoyment of his garden. Mr X’s access, between the flank of his house and the boundary, is unchanged by the neighbouring extension’s location. Any impact on Mr X, of how he now enjoys his garden, is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
12. We note Mr X says he has had stress, disruption and expense. Planning matters and the changes they can bring often cause upset and development works may be disruptive. This, alone, would not warrant an investigation.
13. Mr X also says the matter has affected his relations with his neighbours. But Mr X chose to oppose his neighbour’s planning application. We cannot say it was any Council action which started or added to ill will between Mr X and his neighbour.
14. Mr X has not suffered significant personal injustice to warrant an investigation.
15. Mr X also complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters.
16. We note Mr X says the new development is causing him some echoing noise nuisance because of the flank wall’s closeness to his property. If Mr X considers the noise he is experiencing may amount to a statutory nuisance, he may wish to report this to the Council’s environmental health officers. It would be for those officers to consider his reports and decide what action, if any, the Council should take.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning enforcement decision to warrant an investigation; and
• there is not significant enough injustice caused to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not consider complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman