Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to recognise errors on plans when it approved a planning application for a new house next to his home. We cannot consider this complaint as the decision to approve the application was made by the Planning Inspectorate which is not within our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to check the height of the proposed building in his neighbour’s planning application. He says a submitted drawing showed incorrect heights with a difference of 2.5 metres.
2. He says the resulting building has led to him losing all sunlight at the front of his property and a loss of privacy.
3. Mr X wants the council to compensate him for mitigation measures including:
• screening
• a new window installation to return light to his hall
• new heating to his bathrooms
• satellite TV

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Planning Inspectorate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to his complaint. I also considered the planning decision on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
9. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. In 2017, Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to build a new property on a site next Mr X’s home. Mr X objected to the application saying the building would block light and have a negative impact on his privacy and amenity.
11. The Council considered the application. It noted a drawing had been submitted showing the height of the proposed building will reflect that of Mr X’s home. The Council granted planning permission in October 2017, with a condition stating:

“The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plans”.

12. During construction it became obvious the new building was higher than shown on the plans. Mr X reported this to the Council.
13. The Council inspected the building and required the work to stop as the building did not accord with the approved plans.
14. Mr X’s neighbour put in a new planning application for the property as built. The Council refused the application in January 2019.
15. The neighbours appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. An inspector visited the site. He noted Mr X’s objections but allowed the appeal in October 2019.

Assessment

16. The Council recognises it failed to note the error on the drawings when it granted planning permission in 2017. However, when it received the report about the building being higher than as shown on the plans, it took enforcement action and work stopped.
17. The neighbour submitted a new application to complete the new property as built. The Council refused this application in January 2019.
18. The decision to grant planning permission for the new property as built, was made by the Planning Inspector (PINs).
19. PINs requires its inspectors to look at the application afresh, as if it has been made directly to them, without any prior involvement of the local planning authority. This means that if the Inspector had agreed with Mr X the application should be refused based on his objections to the development, it was open for the inspector to do so. The Inspector decided to allow the appeal, thereby granting planning permission.
20. The injustices Mr X claims due to planning permission for the increased height of the new property. do not flow from the Council’s actions; they flow from the subsequent PINS decision to grant the permission at the appeal. The PINS is a national government body which the Ombudsman cannot investigate.
21. In addition, the law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter. The original planning permission was granted by the Council in 2017 and the subsequent PINs decision was issued in January 2019. Mr X’s complaints are therefore late. I have discretion to investigate late complaints. However, the Council has confirmed the developer has implemented the 2019 planning permission. Therefore, no injustice has been caused to Mr X from the 2017 decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I cannot investigate this complaint. The Council has confirmed the neighbour has built the property according to the 2019 planning permission.
23. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the decision to approve the 2019 planning application because it was made by the Planning Inspectorate.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman