Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension to a neighbouring property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached this decision to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains the Council wrongly granted planning permission for an extension to his neighbour’s property. Mr B says the extension blocks light to his garden, which is now in shade during the late afternoon and evening. Mr B would like the Council to make sure the height of the extension is reduced.

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 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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B and have viewed planning records online.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We can only consider whether there was fault in the way a local planning authority reached a decision to grant planning permission for a proposed development.
7. If there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question a council’s decision that a proposal is acceptable.
8. The Council displayed a site notice outside the application property to publicise this planning application. Mr B did not see the site notice. Mr B says the Council should have also written to him to make him aware of the application.
9. But, the law only required the Council to display a site notice or write to adjoining properties. So, the Council was not at fault for publicising the application by displaying a site notice.
10. The Council wrote a case report setting out its consideration of the proposal. The Council considered the impact of the development on the amenity of Mr B’s property. The Council decided the proposal would not result in unacceptable reductions in sunlight or daylight to his property. The Council took relevant considerations into account including the existing arrangement between the two properties.
11. Mr B strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. But, the information does not suggest the Council was at fault for the way it reached this decision. So, we cannot say the Council was right or wrong to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman