Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission being granted for an extension to the house next door to Mr C. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We cannot question a Council’s decision where it has followed the correct process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr C, complains the Council granted planning permission to his neighbour without making a proper assessment.

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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint, the Council’s responses and its supplementary planning document from the Council website. I invited Mr C to comment of the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C says the Council did not do a proper assessment when granting planning permission to his neighbour. He says no physical measurements were taken and the Council relied on eye judgements. Mr C says the five-metre extension that has been granted is bigger than any other extension in the street, and similar applications by other residents have previously been refused. Mr C also says the Council assessed his own existing extension as 2 – 2.5 metres when in fact it is only 1.6 metres.
6. Mr C says when the extension is built, the guttering will overhang into his airspace and will result in trespass.
7. The Council said that each planning case is assessed individually on its merits. It says that if Mr C’s existing extension is only 1.6 metres, it would not change its decision to grant his neighbours planning application. This is because it would still comply with the Council’s supplementary planning document as Mr C’s neighbour’s extension would not exceed four metres from the edge of his building.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to grant Mr C’s neighbour planning permission. The Council has followed the correct process in making its decision to grant planning permission, and we cannot question that. No trespass has yet occurred as the building has not been built. If, when completed, the build encroaches onto Mr C’s property it would be reasonable for him to ask the court to consider whether this is trespass. We cannot consider injustice that has not yet occurred and trespass is usually a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We cannot question the Council’s decision where it has followed the correct process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman