Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant permission for a single storey rear extension at her neighbour’s property, and how it dealt with her complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting the planning outcome to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X seeks from her complaint which is a further reason for us not to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next door to a property which received planning permission for a single-storey rear extension. She complains the Council:
1. failed to take into account objections she made about earlier applications for the same site;
2. failed to make consistent decisions for the site;
3. used inaccurate information during the planning process;
4. granted permission for a development which is oversized and not in keeping with other nearby extensions;
5. failed to provide her with sufficient information when she sought clarification;
6. failed to properly deal with her complaint.
2. Mrs X says the development will adversely affect her property including loss of light to the rear living space, overshadowing of her patio after midday and loss of privacy. She says this will affect her long-term wellbeing. Mrs X says the complaint process has been stressful, aggravating an existing medical condition affected by stress. She says the construction process will cause her further distress and unwanted alterations to her property. Mrs X is concerned the decision will set a precedent for similarly large extensions in the area.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to:

• suspend the planning permission;
• reconsider the planning decision, to be done by someone independent of the Council;
• scale down the development to be in keeping with other nearby extensions;
• uphold the correct rules and regulations to ensure consistent and fair future planning decisions.

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
• 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 Mrs X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot go behind a council’s planning decision unless there is fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So I have considered the process the Council followed when determining the planning application for Mrs X’s neighbour’s extension.
8. The neighbouring property was the subject of an earlier ‘prior approval’ application. Mrs X lodged objections. The application was refused due to the size and scale of the proposed extension. She says the Council failed to take account of her objections to the prior approval application when considering the later full planning application submitted by the neighbour, which the Council granted. But the Council’s planning officer’s report on the full planning application states it took account of those earlier objections and considered them as part of that assessment. The officer’s report then considers the merits of the application and the material planning issues, including the material objections. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the objections it received from Mrs X during the planning process here to warrant us investigating.
9. Mrs X considers the Council’s planning decisions for the development have been inconsistent. The refused prior approval sought permission to build an extension which was slightly smaller than the development granted permission as a full planning permission. But councils must consider each application on their own merits. The Council was required to assess the application using the details submitted. Different decisions may be made on the same or similar facts and it is not fault for this to happen. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making process to warrant an investigation.
10. Mrs X says the Council’s planning report inaccurately described her conservatory as an extension. The Council accepts this in its response to her complaint. It is unfortunate the report contains this error but there is not enough evidence this affected the outcome of the planning process to justify investigation. Officers were aware of the structure to the rear of Mrs X’s property. The consideration of the impact of the proposed development next door on the conservatory, as opposed to an extension, would not be materially different. Each would require officers to determine whether the location, height and scale of the development caused a level of planning harm to Mrs X’s house and garden to warrant a refusal. That is the assessment officers made. They decided the development would not cause such harm to justify them refusing the application. That was a decision they were entitled to make. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the officers’ decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. Mrs X considers the development is too large and not in keeping with other extensions in the area. Officers considered this concern in the report. They noted the depth of the proposed extension was greater than the depth of rear extensions expected by the supplementary planning documents (SPD). They took the view that part of the original building had formed an earlier projection from the rear wall, so the proposed depth was acceptable given that context. Officers further determined the overall size, scale and height of the proposed development would remain subservient to the host property. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, officers advised the SPD was guidance, which could be diverged from where officers considered a proposed development did not result in planning harm. The Council noted the development’s deviation from guidance but then explained why they considered that to be acceptable in planning terms for this particular development. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning process here which warrants investigation.
12. Mrs X says the Council did not provide her with more information when she sought clarification during the complaint process. The consultation and notifications process with neighbours allows them to make comments on an application. It is then for the planning authority to consider those comments and reach a decision. While councils may respond where resources allow, it is not a requirement of the consultation process for councils to correspond with neighbour consultees about applications. There is not enough evidence of fault on this issue to justify an investigation.
13. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly deal with her complaint, including delaying its responses. We do not investigate councils’ complaint handling in isolation where are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
14. Mrs X wants the Council to suspend the granted planning permission, reduce the size of the development, and for another body to then re-run the planning process. We cannot order the Council to suspend a granted planning permission or require the development to be built differently from the permitted plans. Nor can we order the Council to organise the reconsideration of an application by its officers or another body. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X seeks from her complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate here.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its planning process which would have altered the decision to warrant investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman