Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is no evidence of fault affecting its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of her neighbour’s proposed extension. She says the matter has caused her anxiety and affected her mental health. She also she will suffer financial loss.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Miss X’s complaint, the Council’s response and the planning application details and documents. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and considered her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council granted planning permission for an extension at Miss X’s neighbour’s property in 2020. Miss X disagrees with the decision and wants the Council to withdraw the permission. She says it failed to properly consider the impact on neighbours including loss of light, parking, noise, character/design and loss of privacy. She also says the Council failed to take account of comments made on previous applications for development at the site and its own reasons for refusing them.
6. The application documents show progressive changes to the design of Miss X’s neighbour’s extension to make the proposal acceptable. The Council also confirms the applicant provided additional information with their final application which was not previously available and this allowed it to better assess the impact of the development on neighbouring properties.
7. Where proposals are revised and resubmitted to a local authority the authority must consider whether the revised proposal is acceptable. Comments made on previous applications are not usually carried forward but here Miss X objected to each of the proposals and raised the same or similar points in each case.
8. Several of the issues raised by Miss X are not ‘material planning considerations’; the Council could not therefore consider them in deciding whether to grant planning permission. Non-material considerations include impact on property value and disruption caused by construction works.
9. Miss X raised several material planning considerations in her objection but the evidence shows the Council considered these points in reaching its decision. A council may grant permission for development which will have some impact on neighbour amenity; the question is whether the extent of the impact is acceptable. While I appreciate Miss X disagrees with the judgement of the planning officer I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the decision was made. We cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council affecting its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman