Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a single-storey extension to a property on the end boundary of her garden. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the key outcome Ms X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives in a house sharing an end-of-garden boundary with a property the owner of which received planning permission for a single storey rear extension. She complains the Council did not take proper account of the impacts of the development on her property when deciding the application.
2. Ms X says the development unacceptably affects the daylight to her property and makes it feel more enclosed. She says this will affect her wellbeing. Ms X wants the Council to change its planning decision and accept its assessment was not sufficiently thorough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information from Ms X, relevant online planning documents and maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We may only criticise a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the processes councils follow to make their decisions.
7. The Council accepted the planning application in 2022 and invited comments from neighbouring residents, including Ms X. She made her objections as part of that consultation. A Council planning officer also visited Ms X to see the site of the proposed development from her property.
8. We note there is dispute about the planning officer’s comments during the site meeting. Ms X says the officer said they realised the development would significantly affect her property. The officer denies this. Investigation of this issue would not be likely to determine what was said. In any event, a site visit is to gather information about an area near a proposed development, to inform a council’s later decision. It is not the point in the process at which a council makes its planning decision, so the question of the content of the conversation has no bearing on that decision.
9. The Council’s officers considered the evidence for the planning application, including the site visit and Ms X’s objections, to make their decision. The visiting officer had noted a difference in ground levels and asked the applicant to submit more accurate drawings which took those into account. The Council received the amended drawings in 2023 and officers assessed the matter further. They noted the extension would be visible from Ms X’s property, being higher than the existing garden boundary. But the Council’s officers took the view that the height, location, design and scale of the single-storey extension would not cause such a level of planning harm to Ms X’s house and garden from loss of light or massing to justify them refusing the permission.
10. The Council gathered and considered relevant information about the application and nearby existing properties to reach its planning decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process it followed to make that decision to warrant investigation. I realise Ms 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. The key outcome Ms X wants from her complaint is for the Council to change its planning decision. The applicant is entitled to rely on their granted permission and build the development in line with the permitted plans. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve this outcome for Ms X is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in its decision-making process to justify an investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the key planning outcome she wants from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman