Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. The Council did not grant planning permission for the neighbour’s extension and I have seen no evidence of fault in its handling of their application to vary the approved plans.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning applications. She says her neighbour’s extension has resulted in a loss of light and view to her property and that work to construct it has caused her stress.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s responses and the planning application documents. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their property in 2019. The Council refused the application and the neighbour appealed. The Planning Inspector asked the Council to notify people who had objected to the application about the appeal but confirmed they could not comment further. They also stated they would consider any representations to the original planning application.
6. The Planning Inspector upheld the neighbour’s appeal and granted planning permission for their proposal. Ms X disagrees with this decision. She says the extension is too close to her property and impacts on light and outlook. She complains her objections were not properly considered and that the proposal amounts to overdevelopment which is against council policy and should not have been approved. She is also unhappy the Council did not inform her of the decision.
7. The neighbour has now built the extension but Ms X is unhappy they have not followed the approved plans. The Council investigated the matter and the neighbour applied for planning permission to alter the plans. Ms X objected to this application but the Council found no reasons to refuse it.

The original application/appeal

8. The Council did not grant planning permission for the extension so we cannot hold it responsible for the impact of the development on Ms X’s property. The Planning Inspectorate is the body which allowed the development to go ahead and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about their decisions.
9. While the Council did not inform Ms X of the Planning Inspector’s decision, this decision carried no formal right of appeal. Ms X could only challenge the decision on a point of law by Judicial Review to the High Court and this is an expensive process where the unsuccessful party may have to pay the other’s costs. If Ms X believes the Planning Inspector’s decision is open to challenge by Judicial Review she could ask the court to consider a late application but any suggestion she would have used this process, and that it would have been successful, is entirely speculative. It is therefore not a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

The retrospective application

10. The Council considered Ms X’s comments on the retrospective application to alter the original plans and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision. The planning officer’s report explains the reasons the proposal was acceptable and it is not for us to question the officer’s judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council is not responsible for the decision to grant planning permission for the extension and it is unlikely we would find fault in its handling of the application to vary the approved plans.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman