Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a site next to the complainant’s home, or its handling of the subsequent complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the application was determined, and the Council’s apology is an appropriate way to remedy the delay in responding to the associated complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application, as she says the extension will affect her residential amenity, particularly in relation to her bedroom windows.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• the Council has already taken satisfactory action in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7))

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 an organisation’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 considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and the planning application documents on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision to approve her neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman does not provide a right of appeal against the Council’s decision. Rather, our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made, and to consider if any fault is likely to have influenced the outcome.
7. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision here, to warrant the Ombudsman starting an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• The report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on Mrs X’s ground floor side facing windows, and her bedroom windows (albeit these are referred to as rooflights).
• The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the impact on Mrs X’s residential amenity was acceptable, even if she disagrees with that view.
• Party Wall/boundary issues are not matters which can be taken into account by the Council when it determines planning applications.
8. With regard to the subsequent complaint process, the Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mrs X’s concerns. The Council has provided a satisfactory response to this part of the complaint, so the Ombudsman will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the application, and it has satisfactorily addressed the delay in responding to her subsequent complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman