Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to his neighbour’s further rear extension. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We cannot say there would have been a different planning outcome if the Council had agreed with Mr X’s position on a soft landscaping issue. Concerns about the planning application form do not cause him an injustice which justifies investigation. We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives next door to a property whose owner applied for and received planning permission for a further three-metre long single-storey rear extension. Both Mr X’s and his neighbour’s property already have three-metre single-storey extensions from the original back walls of their houses.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. incorrectly decided the impact of the extension on Mr X’s property was acceptable;
2. granted the permission despite the development resulting in too much loss of outside soft landscaping space to comply with its policy;
3. based its planning decision on inaccurate plans which showed the neighbour’s existing outhouse as smaller than its actual size;
4. accepted a planning application form which the applicant had not correctly completed.
3. Mr X says the development as permitted will result in an unacceptable loss of light to his rear extension. He wants the Council to reduce the length of the permitted extension, to lessen the daylight impact on his property and to comply with its policy on external space.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X considers the impact on his property caused by his neighbour’s extension, to which the Council granted planning permission, is not acceptable. He says it will result in an unacceptable loss of light to his own rear extension.
8. We can consider the process councils followed to reach their decisions. We cannot go behind a council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process which, but for that fault, there would have been a different outcome.
9. The Council received the neighbour’s application for a rear extension six metres away from the host property’s original wall. Officers noted the houses each side of the application property, including Mr X’s, had existing three-metre extensions from their rear walls. Officers recognised there would be impact on daylight to glazed doors serving Mr X’s extension. They noted the neighbour’s extension did not pass the ’45-degree’ test for the nearest set of doors (a 45-degree line drawn from the mid-point of those doors would hit the side of the proposed extension). But they noted the test is for guidance. It is not a rule which, if not met, will automatically result in a planning refusal. Officers have to consider each application on its own facts and in its own planning context. In this case they determined the new extension would only cause the level of impact on Mr X’s property envisaged by its House Design guidance. They took the view the amenity impact on Mr X’s property of the new extension would be no greater than that caused by a three-metre extension to an unmodified host property. In making their decision on the level of impact on Mr X’s property, officers also noted the new extension would be to the north of his extension. This meant any impact on light to Mr X’s property would be to daylight only, rather than to his property’s access to brighter direct sunlight which comes from the east, south and west.
10. Officers decided the impact caused to Mr X’s property’s amenity was not sufficient to justify a refusal. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant investigation. I realise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mr X says the Council should not have granted the planning permission because the development leads to the loss of too much soft landscaping space on the development site to comply with Housing Design policy. The Council disputes this and says the development complies. In any event, even if there is fault in the Council’s calculation of the soft landscaping percentage, we will not investigate. The Council has explained its Housing Design document is guidance for applicants on how to design their planning proposal so they are more likely to gain permission. The guidance shows the Council considers householders should retain ‘as much soft landscaping in their garden as possible’, and it ‘encourages 60 percent retention of soft landscaping’. This is not a rule with which an application must comply to be granted permission. The design guidance did not require officers to refuse the permission even if the development did not meet their preferred 60 percent figure. So we cannot say that if the Council had agreed with Mr X’s position on the percentage of soft landscaping issue that this would have resulted in a different planning outcome.
12. Mr X says the Council based its planning decision on inaccurate plans which showed an existing outhouse owned by the neighbour as smaller than its actual size. The Council says officers did not only rely on the applicant’s plans to decide the application but viewed aerial images to determine the size and location of the outbuilding, and those images tallied with the sketch Mr X submitted. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process on this issue to warrant investigation.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about issues with the application form. It was for the Council to determine whether there was sufficient information to process the application. If the Council had asked the applicant for more or different information on the form, it is unlikely this would have prevented them proceeding with their application to the same planning outcome. So even if there was fault by the Council on this issue, it does not cause Mr X such a significant personal injustice which warrants us investigating.
14. Mr X wants the planning permission amended to reduce its size. This would require the revocation of all or part of the permission as granted. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning decision‑making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot say a different planning outcome would have happened if the Council had agreed with Mr X’s position on the soft landscaping issue; and
• issues with the planning application form do not cause him an injustice which justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks from his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman