Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the grant of 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 retrospective planning permission for a barn conversion near their house.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X neighbour submitted a planning application in August 2020 for alterations to an outbuilding to be used as accommodation. Mr X objected and the Planning Officer had the benefit of his observations as well as photographs of the original building together with the new building as completed.
6. The Council granted planning permission in June 2023. Mr X says that dimensions were inaccurate and no account was taken of his loss of amenity to a window in his property.
7. The Planning Officer report refers to the distance between windows and notes that it is satisfactory after taking account the Council’s policy on such distances. Further the angle and height of the window would not, in the Planning Officer’ view cause such loss of amenity as to warrant refusal of the planning application.
8. The Planning Officer noted Mr X’s comment that the property had been built slightly closer to his house than permitted. The Planning Officer concluded that the difference between that built and that approved in the plans was minor and would not justify refusal of the planning application.
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 have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to grant planning permission. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman