Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council unreasonably granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension which overlooks her property. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of injustice caused by Council fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension which overlooks her property.

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

(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. A planning application was submitted to the Council in 2018 for an extension to a property at the back of Mrs X’s house. The Council accepts that it failed to notify her of the planning application so that she could object.
5. Whilst the failure to notify her it would be fault by the Council, the Ombudsman must consider what injustice was caused. The Council says that the decision would have been the same in any event as the Planning Officer noted the effect on neighbouring properties and concluded that the effect was insufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application.
6. The Council accepts that the Juliet balcony in the extension meant that the minimum separation distance for an acceptable planning application was 10m, rather than 13m. However, the distance between the extension and Mrs X’s house was 22m which is acceptable in planning terms. The Council says that it could not therefore have refused the planning application on the grounds of loss of privacy as the distance was much greater than the minimum allowed in its policy.
7. I am satisfied that the failure to notify Mrs X of the planning application did not alter the final decision and therefore no significant injustice was caused to her by this fault. In the absence of significant personal injustice, the Ombudsman would not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman