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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that planning permission was granted for a neighbour’s extension without proper consideration of the effect upon his amenity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

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. Mr X’s neighbour submitted a prior approval planning application for an extension to his house. The Council wrote to Mr X to notify him of this but Mr X did not reply believing the letter was not relevant as it was not addressed specifically to him.
6. Some permitted development proposals need an application so the council can decide whether it can or should control certain parts of the development, such as design and materials issues or access to the highway. These applications are known as ‘prior notification’ applications.
7. The Council says that application was granted as the law provides that a development becomes permitted development unless a neighbour objects. As no neighbours made objections, planning permission was granted.
8. The Council acted without fault in notifying Mr X of the planning application. The absence of objections meant that that the development became permitted development.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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