Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission for a neighbour’s extension. The complaint about the approval of the first planning application in 2020 is late and there is no good reason to investigate now. Also, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective planning application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, complains for himself and the occupant of the ground floor maisonette below him. He says that the Council granted planning permission for a neighbour’s extension based on incorrect drawings and without considering his objections.
2. He also complains the Council then took two years to grant permission for a retrospective planning application to correct breaches of planning control.
3. Mr X says the neighbour’s extension causes an overwhelming sense of enclosure and has a negative impact on the outlook from him and his downstairs neighbour’s homes. He wants financial compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X’s neighbour applied in 2019 for planning permission to extend their property. The Council publicised the application and Mr X objected. The documents on the Council’s website shows it considered the objections before granting planning permission in March 2020.
10. The law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within twelve months of the event complained about. Planning permission was granted more than three years ago. Therefore, this part of Mr X’s complaint is late.
11. As Mr X has been aware of this since at least 2020 but he did not complain to us until June 2023, I have not seen any good reason to accept a late complaint.
12. Mr X told the Council the extension was not built according to the planning permission.
13. An Enforcement Officer visited the site and established there were breaches of planning control on site. The applicants decided to apply for retrospective planning permission,
14. The Council publicised the application and Mr X again objected.
15. The Planning Officer visited the site, they also visited Mr X’s ground floor neighbour’s property. Mr X says the original plans were wrong. However, the Planning Officer would have been able to make a full assessment of the effect upon neighbouring development. The Planning Officer’s report contains a summary of Mr X’s objections. From the information I have seen I am satisfied that the effect of the built extension on the neighbouring properties was considered. The report specifically refers to the height of the extension at the boundary, the guttering, and the pitch of the roof.
16. The report also notes the skylights in the extension are not flush, the rear extension is finished in render and red ridge tiles have been used. However, the Planning Officer did not consider this to be unacceptable.
17. The Officer concludes the changes to the previously approved scheme are limited and are not an unacceptable design. Planning permission was granted. Therefore, the breaches of planning control are now regularised.
18. From the information I have seen I am not persuaded that the Council failed to properly consider the impact of the extension on the homes of Mr X and his neighbour.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

the part of the complaint about the original planning is made too late; and

• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the retrospective application to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman