Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact of her neighbour’s extension on her property. She says the extension blocks light, is overbearing and affects her outlook.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We investigate 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 continue 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

2. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

3. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
4. The planning officer’s report shows the Council considered the impact of Mrs X’s neighbour’s proposal on her amenity but decided it did not cause significant harm; it therefore granted permission for it.
5. While Mrs X is concerned about the loss of light and outlook the Council has explained the room affected by her neighbour’s development is not a ‘habitable’ room. The extent to which the impact is relevant or ‘material’ to the planning process is therefore a matter for the planning officer to decide. I have seen nothing to suggest the Council’s judgement on this point was irrational or flawed and we cannot therefore question its decision.
6. I appreciate Mrs X is frustrated the planning officer did not respond to her requests for a call back and did not visit her property but there was no requirement for them to do so. The planning officer did not have to visit Mrs X’s property or explain their decision to her and we could not say their actions wrongly affected the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman