Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his neighbours’ planning application for retrospective approval of a rear extension. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to approve the application. So we cannot question the merits of the decision. Nor can we achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mr Q, complained about Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s handling of his neighbours’ retrospective planning application for a rear extension. He said the Council disregarded his comments, objections and professional evidence regarding the extension. Mr Q also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter. Mr Q said the Council had caused him stress and trauma.

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
• 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)
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr Q provided, including the Council’s final complaint response. I considered information available on the Council’s website, including the case officer’s report on the planning application complained of. And I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Normally, single storey rear extensions on detached properties of up to four metres are allowed under permitted development rights.

What happened

7. Mr Q’s neighbours built a rear extension on their property. It was 14cm bigger than that allowed under permitted development rights. They did not apply for planning permission before building.
8. Mr Q’s neighbours later made a retrospective planning application seeking approval for their extension. Mr Q objected to the application. He said the plans had inaccurate measurements. He also provided expert evidence showing how the extension would cause loss of light and shadowing to his property.
9. The Council asked Mr Q’s neighbours for accurate plans and told him about the revisions. The case officer’s report on the application shows the Council considered Mr Q’s objections to the application and his concerns about loss of light and shadowing. But it did not consider the extension caused excessive additional shadowing. The Council also noted the extension was outside the guidance in its Householder Design Guide. But it decided, on balance, that the extension was acceptable and granted approval.
10. Mr Q later complained to the Council before bringing his complaint to us. He said the Council had ignored his comments, objections and professional evidence regarding the extension. He also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter. Mr Q would like the Council to revoke the planning approval and for the extension to be built in accordance with the Council’s Design Guide. Mr Q wants the Council to pay him compensation for the impact of the extension on his property.

Assessment

11. We will not investigate this complaint.
12. I recognise Mr Q is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his neighbours’ planning application. However, it is clear from the case officer’s report that the Council did take account of Mr Q’s objections. It was aware the extension would cause some additional shadowing and that it did not comply with its Design Guide. In my view, the Council considered all relevant matters before approving the application. Therefore, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. And, because of this, we cannot question whether the Council’s decision to approve the application was right or wrong simply because Mr Q disagrees with it.
13. In addition, we have no power to require the Council to revoke the application. nor can we require the Council to ensure the extension is built in accordance with its Design Guide. And, as we are unlikely to find fault, we are unlikely to recommend the Council pay Mr Q compensation. So we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Q wants.
14. Finally, Mr Q is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint about the matter. We are not proposing to investigate the substantive matter Mr Q complained of. So it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s handling of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman