Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for works to a property next to the complainant’s house. 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 to suggest fault has affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council failed to properly consider her amenity or construction disruption when it granted planning permission for extensions and an increase in height to her neighbour’s home.

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.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which consisted of their complaint correspondence and the case officer’s report for the application.
5. I also considered our Assessment Code, and information about the planning application on the Council’s website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not a planning appeal body. Our role is to review the process by which planning decisions are made. We look for evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to the individual complainant. In practice, this means we will consider whether any fault in the way the Council assessed the application is likely to have affected the outcome.
7. I am satisfied there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice here to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the complaint further.
8. In reaching this view, I am mindful that construction disruption/disturbance is not something the Council could take into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for this development. These kinds of issues are covered by other legislation, and government guidance says the planning system should not duplicate matters dealt with under other regulatory regimes.
9. And, having read the case officer’s report, I am satisfied that although the Council may have incorrectly identified one of Mrs X’s ground floor rooms as non‑habitable, this is unlikely to have affected its decision to grant planning permission. I appreciate Mrs X feels her amenity will be unacceptably harmed by the completed development, but the Council’s planning officers were entitled to reach their own professional judgement on this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence to suggest fault has affected the Council’s decision on the application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman