Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a planning application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not follow government guidelines and disregarded her views when determining her neighbour’s planning application for an extension. She says she has lost her amenity, privacy and is now overlooked, and her garden is overshadowed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, 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))
4. We can 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)
5. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application on the Council’s website.
• the planning policies relevant to the application.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision on her neighbour’s planning application. But the Ombudsman does not act as 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 the Council 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 the complainant disagrees with the decision the Council made.
8. I find there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application to justify starting an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The case officer visited the application site. There is no requirement to visit neighbouring properties.
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• Planning applications are assessed against national and local planning policies, and any other material considerations; the permitted development thresholds/criteria are not relevant.
• The report considers the impact of the extension on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. In particular, it concludes the separation distance will mitigate against any loss of light or sense of overbearing, and that the rear windows afford limited views over neighbouring gardens. The report also considers the residual amenity space at the application site, and the design/visual amenity of the proposal.
• The case officer was entitled to reach a professional judgement on these planning issues, and to conclude that the proposal would not cause a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, even if Mrs X disagrees with this decision.
• The complaint responses confirm the Council is satisfied the 25- and 45-degree rules are not breached.
• The ‘right to light’ is a civil matter, and not a material planning consideration when determining a planning application.
9. Finally, as we have decided not to investigate the Council’s determination of the application, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue any alleged faults in the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman