Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a neighbour’s one storey rear extension. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a neighbour’s one storey extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council granted planning permission for a one story extension at the back of his neighbour’s house in September 2019. Mr X contends that the planning application should have been considered by the Planning Committee and his amenity was not properly taken into account.
5. The Council says that the question of whether the planning application should be considered by the Planning Committee was dealt with in a meeting between the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee and this meeting is minuted. I am satisfied that this matter was discussed. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Council’s Planning Committee should have dealt with the planning application but there is evidence that the question was properly considered.
6. The Planning Officer’s report makes a clear reference to Mr X’s property and the possible effect upon his amenity. The Planning Officer concluded that the loss of light would not be sufficient to warrant refusal as it satisfied the 45 degree rule and the extension faced North.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the planning permission should have been granted. He can only comment on the matter if there was evidence of administrative fault in the way the decision was reached. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer took into account any possible loss of amenity to Mr X and, in the absence of fault, the Councils’ conclusion, that planning permission be granted, is not a decision the Ombudsman could question.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman