Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of and decision on his neighbour’s planning application for a rear extension. The complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. If we were to investigate, there is insufficient evidence of Council fault to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property whose owner sought planning permission to develop their home, to include a single storey rear extension.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the height of the rear extension on his property.
3. Mr X says the development has left him with an overbearing high wall facing his garden. He feels let down by the Council’s planning department. Mr X wants officers to take more responsibility when considering the impacts of developments when granting them permission.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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 maps and planning documents;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X objected to the planning application during the consultation period. The Council granted the neighbour’s planning permission in late 2019. Mr X complained to the Council about 11 months later. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the Council complaint, Mr X complained to us in early 2021.
8. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of their becoming aware of the problem complained of. On the evidence I have seen, Mr X was aware of the Council’s decision to grant the neighbour’s permission for over a year before he brought his complaint about that decision to us. This means the complaint is late.
9. Mr X says his complaint to us was late because he had to go through the Council’s internal complaint process, each level of which included a wait of up to 10 working days for a response. But Mr X did not complain to the Council until about 11 months after the planning decision. It was not the duration of the Council’s complaint process which caused the complaint to us to be late.
10. I have considered whether there are good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate this late complaint. I do not consider there are such grounds here. I say this because I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process and decision which would justify us investigating.
11. The Council’s planning report considered the application, including the impact of the development on neighbouring properties such as Mr X’s. Officers noted the side wall of the extension would be located between Mr X’s and the neighbour’s property. Officers noted the 2.3 metre eaves height and the 3.5 metre highest point of the pitched roof. Officers considered the size, scale and location of the extension would not cause an overbearing impact, loss of light or other significant negative effects on neighbours’ amenity.
12. To go behind a council’s professional judgement decision, we must see evidence of fault in the process they followed which would have resulted in a different outcome.
13. I have not seen enough evidence of fault by officers in the process they used to consider the application which could allow us to criticise the Council’s planning decision. Officers assessed the extension’s impact on Mr X’s property and reached their professional judgement decision that it would not cause such planning harm to justify them refusing the application. That is a decision they were entitled to make.
14. Mr X does not believe officers cared about this extension's impact on his property. He believes the wall is at least two brick courses higher than necessary and feels the structure could have been modified to lessen its impact.
15. Once a planning application is put before officers, they are required to either grant it permission or refuse it. It is not for officers at that stage to seek amendments to submitted plans by passing issues back to the applicant, requesting modifications. The decision before officers was whether the proposed development as presented to them was acceptable in planning terms. Officers assessed the level of planning harm to Mr X’s property and reached their professional judgement that the development did not cause such harm that a refusal could be supported or sustained.
16. Even if we applied discretion and were to investigate this late complaint, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way officers made their planning decision to indicate we could go behind that decision here. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now; and
• if we were to investigate now, there is insufficient evidence of Council fault to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman