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

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that planning permission was unreasonably granted for a neighbour’s extension despite the loss of privacy caused to her.

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.

(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. Ms X says that a planning application for an extension to the rear of her property was unreasonably approved despite previous refusals for earlier planning applications which were similar.
6. The Planning Officer report for the planning application noted the previous refusals together with the reasons. The report noted that planning permission had previously been granted (by a Certificate of Lawful Development) for a single storey side extension and rear extension.
7. It is possible to seek formal confirmation from councils that an existing or proposed development or use of land is lawful and so needs no planning permission. If the Council accepts the evidence provided, it can issue a certificate of lawful use to the applicant.
8. This may happen where:
9. the Council has already granted planning permission for the use or development;
10. a development is ‘permitted development’ and so deemed acceptable because it complies with limits in regulations;
11. the development was unlawful, but the time limit for enforcement actions has now passed.
12. The report therefore distinguished between that which was proposed and that which could be built in any event by Permitted Development.
13. The effect upon Ms X’s property was specifically referred to in the report as there would be overlooking by a proposed window. The Planning Officer decided that the loss of privacy could be remedied by a condition requiring the window to be obscure glazed.
14. Overall the Council decided that the increase in size compared to that which could have been built without planning permission was not so significant as to warrant refusal and the loss of privacy could be remedied by a planning condition.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the planning application. In the absence of fault, we cannot question the grant of planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman