Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour for a roof extension. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s grant of planning permission to a neighbour for a roof extension.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had the opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says that the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension despite previously refusing a similar planning application from the same neighbour. He says that the window in the roof will be able to overlook his garden and bedrooms.
7. I note that the previous planning application was not refused because of any loss of amenity to neighbours. In the recent planning application the Council had before them scaled plans which showed the size of the extension and distance from Mr X’s house.
8. The Council says that their planning policy says the minimum distance before it is considered that amenity is significantly affected is 20m whereas in this case the distance is greater. The Council also say that the window is at an angle to Mr X’s house and so does not have the same effect as if the building were directly opposite.
9. The Planning Officer concluded that any effect on neighbouring amenity would be insufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application.
10. I am satisfied that the Council had before all necessary evidence to reach a decision. In the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman would not question the Council’s professional judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman