Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with and decided to grant her neighbour’s planning permission for a development including a garden room. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives next door to a planning applicant. That neighbour sought and received full planning permission for a new rear extension, roof extension, and for a garden room converted from a former outbuilding.
2. Miss X complains the Council:
1. did not properly consider her objections to the application;
2. did not do a site visit;
3. granted the garden room permission even though it is higher than ‘permitted allowances’;
4. failed to further consult her on the planning decision or notify her of it.
3. Miss X wants the Council to:
• consider the objections she made;
• do a site visit to assess the impact of the development on their property;
• intervene in the developer’s build to reduce the size of the garden room, particularly its height.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Miss X to reply

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her objections to the application. The Council sent a consultation letter to Miss X and another neighbour. Miss X made her objections in response, within the usual planning consultation process. The Council’s planning officers then considered Miss X’s objections, and all others, summarising them in their report. The report then discussed the material planning issues raised by the objections and the proposed development. They reached the view that none of the objections gave material planning grounds for them to refuse the application. The Council took proper account of Miss X’s objections. There are no grounds for us to consider this issue further.
8. I note Miss X says the Council did not do a site visit when making their decision. But there is no duty on a council to visit a site when determining a planning application. National government guidance to local planning authorities does not require them to visit all proposed development sites. It is for officers to satisfy themselves that they have enough information to make their decision. So even if the Council’s officers did not make a site visit here, that would not be grounds for us to investigate this complaint, because it would not have been fault for them to not visit.
9. Miss X says the Council granted the garden room permission even though it is taller than ‘permitted allowances’. It appears Miss X is referring to the maximum height for a garden structure under the General Permitted Development Regulations (GPDR) here. Where someone wants to build something larger than permitted under GPDR, they should apply for full planning permission. This is what the planning applicants did here. This means the development was not limited by GPDR allowances for height or other dimensions. The proposed development, applied for under a full planning application, was then considered by officers, to determine whether the proposal was acceptable in planning terms. As one part of that consideration, officers noted the outbuilding’s height was 30 centimetres taller than would have been permitted under GPDR. They took the view that the proposed outbuilding’s additional visual impact, when compared with what would have been permitted under GPDR, was not enough to cause material planning harm.
10. We can only go behind a council’s decision if there has been fault in the process followed to reach that decision which, but for the fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the decision-making process it followed to warrant an investigation. I realise Miss X disagrees with the Council officers’ planning decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Miss X says the Council failed to further consult her on the planning decision and did not notify her of it. When officers have made their decision on the application, they do not have to consult again. Where a proposed development does not change during an application and consultation is required, a council need only consult once. The Council did this here and Miss X made her objections. Officers then take their decision, based on the information gathered. They are not required to reconsult or re-check with any party before doing so.
12. Some councils may notify objectors of their planning decision if they ask officers to do so. But even if the Council should have notified Miss X but did not do so here, there has been no significant injustice caused to her as she is aware of the Council’s planning decision. Miss X being notified earlier by officers would have no bearing on the current circumstances.
13. In reaching my decision not to investigate, I have considered the outcomes Miss X wants from her complaint. Two of those outcomes – consideration of her objections and a site visit – are dealt with above. A third outcome she seeks is for the Council to intervene in the neighbour’s build to reduce the height of the garden room. We cannot order councils to do this so cannot achieve this outcome for Miss X. This is a further reason why we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed in making its planning decision to warrant our investigating;
• we cannot achieve a key outcome Miss X wants from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman