Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council granting planning permission to a neighbouring property for a rear extension, a change of its use to a children’s home, and how officers considered the impacts of the development on her amenity. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision‑making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives next to a property in a residential area whose owner sought planning permission to extend it to the rear and change its use to a children’s home. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. has allowed installation of a dormer and ground floor extension using materials which do not match the host property;
2. failed to properly consider the impacts of the development on her amenity from parking, noise, overlooking and loss of privacy.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to not allow the development and change the extension so it is in keeping with the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused a previous application for the development. The refusal decided the development would cause unacceptable noise and disturbance, affecting residents’ living conditions, and that part of the rear extension works affected the character and appearance of the area. The owners submitted a further planning application which proposed to change the appearance of the extension and make changes to the management process of the home. The Council has now granted permission for the development.
7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
8. Mrs X says the render used on the exterior of the rear extension does not match the host property and is not in keeping with the wider area. The previous application sought permission for only some of the extension elements to be rendered. The second planning application requested permission for all parts of the extension to be rendered. The Council has considered whether the external appearance of the extension gave them grounds to refuse the application. Officers took the view that the fully rendered finish overcame sufficiently the previous concerns about its appearance and no longer warranted a refusal.
9. The Council also assessed the impacts of the development on Mrs X’s property and the wider area. Officers gathered information about the development and applied the relevant policies. Their planning report and responses to late representations by objectors included consideration of the extension’s windows, the proposed change of use to the property, noise, traffic and parking issues. Officers determined changes to the staffing rota for the property’s use overcame previous concerns about the number of movements to and from it. They decided the development and the proposed use of the property would not cause sufficient loss of amenity or planning harm to justify them refusing the permission. This was a decision they were entitled to make.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council officers’ decision-making process here to allow us to go behind it or to warrant an investigation. We realise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. The outcomes Mrs X wants from her complaint are for the Council to reverse its planning decision and to require the applicant to change the appearance of the rear extension. This would require the Council revoking the permission it has now granted. We cannot order councils to revoke planning permissions. That we cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X seeks from her complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s planning decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks from the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman