Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s planning process which granted permission for his neighbour’s balcony. There is not enough evidence of fault in that process which affected the planning decision to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property which received planning permission for a balcony several years ago. His neighbour built the balcony larger than the original permitted one metre depth. In 2021, they sought and received retrospective permission for the 2.5m balcony they had built
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. misrepresented the increased depth of the balcony in the 2021 application by describing the increase as 1.3m, when the increase on the original permission was 1.5m;
2. employed someone with a planning consultancy business to assess the application, which he considers was a conflict of interest.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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))
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 Mr X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There were errors in the description of the original permitted balcony depth in the 2021 application. The report should have referred to the original depth as 1m, and the additional depth being considered in the 2021 application for a 2.5m-deep balcony as an additional 1.5m.
7. Notwithstanding this, or the email Mr X received from the planning officer referring to the original 1m depth, it is clear from the 2021 report that the planning outcome being considered by the Council was a 2.5m-deep balcony. The officer assessed that the size, scale and location of the balcony at 2.5m deep, and the privacy screening required as part of the permission, would not result in such adverse impact on Mr X’s property’s amenity to warrant refusal. That was a view they were entitled to reach after their consideration of the application.
8. There were discrepancies in the original balcony depth, and a 20cm difference in the quoted increase in depth requested in the 2021 application. But there is not enough evidence of fault which affected the outcome of the officers’ planning assessment of the impact of the balcony as built to warrant investigation.
9. For the Ombudsman to criticise a council’s professional judgement, there would have to be evidence of fault in the process followed which, but for that fault, a different view would have been reached. I realise Mr X might consider the impact of the balcony on his property is unacceptable. But it is not fault for a council to properly reach a view with which someone disagrees.
10. Mr X says the officer employed by the Council to produce the 2021 planning report also had a planning consultancy business. He believes this officer’s involvement may have resulted in a conflict of interest. That the officer was also a planning consultant does not in itself demonstrate there was such a conflict. Mr X does not say what the conflict of interest might have been in respect of his neighbour’s 2021 application, or how it specifically affected the Council’s planning process when dealing with that application. There is not enough evidence that the officer’s employment roles had any impact on the planning outcome of the 2021 application.
11. It should be noted the planning officer was not the decision-maker here. They were employed for their planning knowledge and training to appraise the application. Once they produced their report, it was referred to a Council‑employed manager to make and sign the decision which granted the permission. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in this arrangement of its planning process to warrant investigation of this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s process which affected its planning decision to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman