Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for their neighbour’s extension. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the application to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council considered her neighbour’s planning application. She also says the Council failed to tell her about the application.

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.

(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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s published records show it sent a letter to Mrs X’s address. The addressee would have been the occupier. It also shows the Council attached a site notice to the lamp post in front of the property, and published an advert in the local paper as the site is within a conservation area.
6. I cannot know why Mrs X did not receive the Council’s letter. However, the Council’s website show it was sent to neighbouring houses. The Council is not required to provide proof of postage. It also erected a site notice and published an advert in the local paper. This meets the statutory requirements for notifying neighbours about planning applications. I consider that further investigation on this point is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
7. The Planning Officer’s report shows the Council considered the impact of the proposed extension on Mrs X’s home. It notes the extension will breach the 45-degree rule on Mrs X’s nearest window. However, it also notes the property benefits from permitted development rights and the proposed extension falls within the permitted development criteria. And permission for a similar proposal had been granted previously but had since expired. The Council granted planning permission.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to reach a judgement about whether a development is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning polices; comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision.
9. The evidence strongly suggests that this is what has happened in this case and therefore the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman