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

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, complains about the Council’s handling of his neighbour’s planning application. He says his objections were not properly considered.
2. Mr J also says the development will:
• make his property less attractive to future buyers
• spoils his enjoyment of his property; and
• has caused ill feeling between neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered :
• information provided by the Mr J, the Council and planning information on the Council’s website
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code; and
• Mr J’s comments on the draft version of this decision

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr J’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a single storey rear extension. Mr J objected to the application saying:
• the proposal is excessively large and unsympathetic
• it creates a sense of enclosure
• it destroys character of period houses
• it creates unbalanced appearance
• it causes overshadowing/ loss of light to his home; and
• concerns about party wall matters and possible damage to Mr J’s property

Mr J suggested his neighbour worked with him to come up with a better scheme.

7. The planning officer’s report explains how the Council decided the extension was acceptable and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting its decision. It addresses concerns about the design of the extension, the impact on the area, its size and impact on neighbour privacy. It also noted the applicant’s agent provided a sunlight assessment which shows the overshadowing would be minimal.
8. Objections about party wall matters are not material planning considerations and the Council cannot consider these as part of the planning process.
9. Having considered the proposal, the relevant national and local planning policies and the objections, the planning officer recommended the application for approval.
10. A senior officer reviewed the report and agreed with the recommendation. The application was approved according to the Council’s scheme of delegation.
11. It is for planning officers or committee members to balance both national and local policy and decide to approve an application or not. We must consider whether there was fault in how the Council did this, not whether the decision was right or wrong. Without fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the decision itself.
12. The planning officer’s report lays out what legislation has applied to the case and why the officer has made their recommendation. The officer decided the application would not have a significant harmful impact on the character of the area. This is a professional judgement and decision the officer is entitled to make. While Mr J may disagree with the decision, this does not make it wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. Mr J says the Council’s consideration of his objections was superficial. However, the report includes a summary of his objections and it details why the Council considers the proposal is acceptable. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the planning decision was reached.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman