Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a first floor side and rear extension in June 2020. Mr X objected citing loss of light, privacy and argued that the property was domineering.
5. The Planning Officer noted that Mr X did not have habitable windows facing the proposed extension and it would comply with the 45 degree rule. The Planning Officer noted the relative position of the extension to Mr X’s house but concluded that the loss of amenity would not warrant refusal of the planning application.
6. I am satisfied that the Planning Officer was fully aware (from the plans) of the effect the extension would have on Mr X’s amenity. Mr X's dissatisfaction lies with the merits of the Council's decision but, in the absence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council's decision.

Back to top

Final decision

7. I do not intend to investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman