Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about fault in how the Council handled multiple planning applications for a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about fault in the Council’s planning process which led it to approve multiple planning applications for a neighbouring property. In relation to the final planning application, Mr X complained:
• the Council failed to allow residents to be present at a planning meeting;
• the Planning Officer had not correctly viewed and assessed the site;
• the Council failed to take enforcement action relating to an earlier application it rejected; and
• breaches from an earlier application now impacted the outcome of a later approved application.
2. As a result, Mr X said the extension of the neighbouring property is considerably larger, causing him and neighbours avoidable stress and impacting on his amenity and privacy. He wants the Council to revoke its approval of the latest planning application and compensate him for the avoidable stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said earlier extension plans and non-compliance of conditions by the owner have resulted in the Council approving plans for a significantly larger extension. Mr X said the approval of the latest planning application violated the original conditions the Council had approved.
8. The Planning Officer’s report included representations it had received from neighbours including those from Mr X. The report showed the Officer considered the visual impact of the development as well as concerns around overlooking and loss of light. The report found:
• while the proposal was out of character for the surrounding area, the dwelling itself was of a different character and therefore the harm of a side extension was more limited.
• the orientation of the site to the north of terraced houses prevented loss of light; and
• a window in an additional utility/ storage room would unlikely cause an increase in overlooking or loss of privacy. Obscure glazed windows were also suggested as an additional consideration to ensure neighbour’s privacy.
9. There is evidence in the Planning Officer’s report the Council considered previous applications and conditions for the property. It said the new approved plans reduced the size of the extension in overall scale and created an extension that had less of an impact on neighbouring dwellings.
10. In its complaint response, the Council said the Chair of the Planning Committee found the application did not raise an issue of a strategic nature or was of borough-wide interest to be assessed at Planning Committee. Therefore, because the application was not considered by the Planning Committee, but by officers under delegated authority, there was no right to speak available.
11. Mr X wants the Council to take enforcement action. Planning enforcement is a discretionary power held by the local planning authorities. It is for those authorities’ officers to make their decision on whether to use their powers. National government guidance advises authorities to use enforcement as a last resort and only where there is a significant harm caused by an identified planning breach.
12. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council said it assessed the relevant information and applied the governance guidance to inform its decision not to enforce against the planning breach as it concluded approving the new application would regularise the existing breach. The Council assessed the recent application on its own merits and took the view that previous enforcement action did not affect the latest application.
13. The Council made its decisions to approve the latest planning application for Mr X’s neighbouring property in line with its policies and its guidance for two-storey extensions.
14. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant information. While Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision in this case, there is no evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman