Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the way the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr X’s neighbour’s rear extension. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Furthermore, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks, to amend the plans for the permitted extension.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next to a property where the owner applied for and received planning permission to build a rear extension.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to properly consider the impact of the permitted extension on the amenity of his property;
2. made a perverse decision to grant permission for the extension.
3. Mr X is upset at the Council’s decision. He considers the neighbour’s development will seriously affect the amount of light reaching his bay window and block his views of nearby gardens. Mr X wants the Council to suggest changes to the development to address his concerns, before the neighbour starts construction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. 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

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply, and considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X’s neighbour submitted two earlier planning applications for similar ground floor rear extensions, both of which the Council refused permission. The third application included a half-metre ‘stepped’ or ‘cut’ corner to the extension, on the corner closest to Mr X’s property.
8. Mr X considers the Council’s decision to grant this third application must be a perverse planning decision. He considers the amended application with the cut corner does not significantly reduce the impacts of loss of light, loss of view and the overbearing nature of the extension.
9. The aim of the third amended application was to reduce the impact of the extension so it could receive the permission the applicants sought. On receipt of the valid third application, it was the role of the Council’s planning officers to determine whether the development proposed by that application was acceptable in planning terms, including the level of the impact on existing properties. Officers considered the light levels and determined the light and massing impact on Mr X’s property of the amended extension would not be sufficient to support a refusal decision. That was a decision they were entitled to take.
10. I do not consider there are grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate the Council’s planning process and decision. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way officers reached their planning decision to justify an Ombudsman investigation. I realise Mr X disagrees with the officers’ decision and does not understand how they reached it. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mr X says the Council should have delayed its planning decision until after the COVID-19 pandemic, so it could conduct a more thorough consideration of the application. National government advised councils to continue with the planning process. Officers considered they were able to assess the plans and use their knowledge of the site to make their decision. There is not enough evidence to show the Council’s planning process was affected by the wider context of the COVID-19 situation to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
12. Mr X has also raised concerns that the extension will affect his view from his windows. There is no protection enshrined within the planning process to retain a particular unchanged view from a property. The view from Mr X’s window was not a material planning issue so the Council could not take it into account or use it as a reason to refuse the permission.
13. I note the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is for the Council to secure amendments to the extension before construction starts. Councils cannot retrospectively apply conditions or amendments to a planning permission which has already been granted. To change the development’s permission now would require revocation of the one already granted. The Ombudsman cannot order a council to do this, so he cannot achieve the remedy Mr X wants. This is a further reason why the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it made its planning decision to warrant an Ombudsman investigation;
• the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman