Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council followed before approving a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call X, says when the Council approved their neighbour’s planning application it followed poor processes and used incorrect information.
2. X says the decision to approve the application for an unacceptably large extension has caused anxiety and defaced a terrace of 200-year-old cottages.
3. They want the planning permission revoked because they believe the Council failed to properly consult residents or correctly evaluate the application.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. X objected to their neighbour’s planning application because:
• it would cause a terracing effect and affect the value of their property
• they will not allow the neighbour to attach the proposed extension to their home
• not enough parking spaces
• the proposed development is overbearing
• impact on privacy
• there is a high-water table with risk of flooding; and
• possible harm to bats
8. The Planning Officer’s report on the proposal is brief. However, it confirms:
• the Drainage Team has no objections
• the Countryside Officer is satisfied with the Bat Survey Report and agrees with the proposed bat boxes
• the proposals maintain the look of the terrace with similar materials and style
• sufficient amenity space will remain
• no adverse loss of daylight or sunlight at the proposals lay to the north of the neighbours; and
• the extension will not extend further than X’s property
9. The Council accepts the Planning Officer’s report on the application lacks details but confirms:
• the Planning Officer visited the site and was aware of the character of the area
• the Planning Officer also considered flood risk, ecology, bat survey and sought further information
• the design and scale of the proposed extension are considered acceptable as it is consistent with materials and appearance of existing buildings and the plot size enough to accommodate the proposal
• there is no material harm to neighbour amenity
• the proposal complies with the 45-degree rule
• the proposal does not cause unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing
• there is no adverse impact on light to neighbours as they are to the north of the development; and
• the Conservation officer reviewed the application and considered the “contribution the cottages make to the XXXX conservation area will not be impacted by the proposed development and the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.”

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to approve their neighbour’s planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman