Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about planning permission as there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a neighbour’s extension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains that the complainant failed to properly consider his loss of light and amenity from a planning application for an extension next door.
6. A planning application for an extension was submitted in September 2022. Mr X objected arguing that the extension would block out light to several windows to his flat.
7. The Planning Officer noted the objections but considered that the extension would not cause sufficient loss of light to warrant refusal. The Council says that Permitted Development rights meant that the extension could have been built to a similar size without the need for planning permission. Further, other extensions have been built nearby which would have made it difficult to justify refusal to a Planning Inspector.
8. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. The Ombudsman is 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, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. I am satisfied that the Council had before it all the evidence necessary in order to make a planning decision. The report contained a clear reference to Mr X’s objections and an explanation provided as to why they would not warrant refusal.
11. In the absence of administrative fault, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of that decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman