Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a house near her property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We will not investigate Ms X complaint about the council’s complaint process as we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives near a property whose owner applied for and received planning permission for a rear extension. The development is sited along the end of the boundary of Ms X’s garden.
2. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to take proper account of the impact of the development on her property;
2. did not make a planning decision consistent with other similar developments in the vicinity;
3. delayed the complaint process and did not respond to her questions and further information on the development’s impact.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X;
• relevant online planning documents and maps;
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code;
• Ms X’s response to my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council did not take proper account of the impact of the development on her property, including its effect on her light and her view. The Council planning officer assessed the application information and any objections and consultee responses received. The officer’s report considered and set out the relevant material planning impacts on Ms X’s and other nearby properties. The officer noted the size and scale of the different elements of the extension in relation to Ms X’s property, including the heights of those elements and the distances from Ms X’s house. They took the view that the impacts of the proposed development on Ms X’s property, in terms of light loss, privacy, or increased sense of enclosure, would not be sufficient to justify a planning refusal. That was a professional planning judgement they were entitled to make.
7. I realise Ms X questions how officers reach their decisions. She wanted them to do various calculations to reach their views on this application. But officers were satisfied the details of the development were sufficient to assess and determine the application. It is for them to determine what information is required to make their decision.
8. We can only criticise a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in their decision-making process which, but for that fault, a different decision would have been made. There is not enough evidence of such fault here to warrant us investigating. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant the permission. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Ms X considers the Council made a planning decision which was not consistent with other similar developments in the vicinity. Each planning application should be considered on its own facts and merits. It is the role of planning officers to use their professional judgement to determine whether a valid application put before them is acceptable on those facts and merits. Other applications may be similar, but none will be exactly the same so as to bind an officer to reach a particular view on the application they need to determine. Different officers may reach different views and it not be fault, even on the same information. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision here to justify us investigating.
10. Ms X also complains about delay in the Council’s complaint process, and that officers did not respond to her questions and further information on the development’s impact. We will not investigate complaints about a council’s internal complaint process where we do not intend to investigate the core issues giving rise to the complaint. We do not consider it an effective use of public funds to do so. This limitation applies here, so we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because:

• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating;
• we will not investigate complaints about a council’s internal complaint process where we do not intend to investigate the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman