Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council processed and decided a neighbour’s planning application or the way it has handled a possible planning breach. There is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him of a neighbour’s planning application and failed to correctly make the decision on the application. He says the neighbour has breached the planning permission by building 1.5 metres closer to the boundary. He says the new building is very close and imposing for his property and has reduced the enjoyment of his 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 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 planning application available online.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour applied for planning permission for a two-story extension which has been approved and built. Mr X says the Council did not tell him about the application. He says he does not believe the Council correctly made the decision when approving the application. Further he says the neighbour has built the extension 1.5 metres closer to the boundary and is concerned the Council allowed this.
6. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council did not write to him directly. The Council says it displayed notices in the local area about the planning application. The Council was not obliged also to notify neighbours individually, so I do not find fault here.
7. Mr X says the planning decision was flawed because he does not believe the Council considered the effect on the neighbours behind the application site. He says the extension is imposing and close to the boundary. Although I understand this is a change to the visual outlook, I do not consider that a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
8. The nearest part of Mr X’s property to the extension faces south south-west and has no windows. So the extension does not directly overshadow Mr X’s windows. The nearest windows in his property would still receive sunlight for a substantial part of the day without a shadow being cast by the extension. I do not consider any reduction in light levels inside Mr X’s house, or in his garden, to be sufficient to warrant an investigation.
9. Mr X argues the extension has been built 1.5 metres closer to his boundary than the planning permission allowed. Whilst I understand this is frustrating, I am not satisfied this would significantly change the amount of light reaching Mr X’s windows. So this point in itself does not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice caused to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman