Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a planning matter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decision to grant planning permission.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. He says the development approved is too big, too close to their shared boundary, will result in loss of light and may damage his 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, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s responses and the planning application documents. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission to extend their property in 2020. Mr X objected to the proposal and to their amended plans which sought to address some of the concerns raised by neighbours. He wishes to appeal against the Council's decision as he says the extension will impact on his right to light and may cause damage to his property. He is also concerned his neighbour did not comply with one of the conditions attached to the planning application.
6. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body; we can deal with complaints about the way a council reached a decision to grant planning permission but we cannot question its judgement.
7. The planning officer’s report in this case explains the reasons it decided to grant planning permission and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. We cannot therefore criticise it. The Council acknowledged an impact on light to Mr X’s property but decided the impact was not significant enough to warrant refusal. This is a decision it was entitled to reach. Mr X refers to his ‘right to light’ but this is a private civil matter between him and his neighbour, as are any concerns he has about damage to his property.
8. Mr X says he did not receive notification from the Council of amendments to his neighbour’s plans but he was able to submit further comments on the amendment; whether fault on this point lies with the Council or Royal Mail, it did not cause him significant injustice.
9. Mr X also raises concerns about his neighbour’s failure to comply with a pre-commencement condition and suggests the Council should have taken action to stop the build when he raised this point. But the Council is under no obligation to take formal enforcement in every case and the issue is now resolved. The Council is satisfied with the information provided by the applicant and has discharged the condition. There is therefore no basis for formal enforcement action and we cannot say the Council must make changes to the planning permission as Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman