Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning application decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about inconsistencies and ambiguities in the Council’s decision to approve his neighbour’s planning application for a single storey extension. In particular, he says:
• The extension height is not stated on the plans.
• The case officer’s report says the extension will incorporate, rather than replace, an existing conservatory.
• The case officer’s report fails to accurately describe the increase in height of the proposed extension compared to the existing conservatory.
• The Council has failed to take sufficient account of planning policies and the impact on his amenity.
2. Mr X says the extension will be overbearing, causing overshadowing and a loss of outlook to his home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s planning webpages.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council has granted planning permission for his neighbour’s extension.
7. But 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, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if there is clear evidence of fault in the way a decision was made which, but for that fault, is likely to have led to a different decision or outcome for the complainant.
8. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault in the decision-making process has affected the planning application outcome, so we will not investigate the matter. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• The case officer visited the application site and took photographs. There was no requirement to visit neighbouring properties.
• The Council would also have been able to take height measurements from the scaled plan.
• The case officer’s report refers to the relevant planning policies and guidance documents.
• The case officer’s report summarises the objections received, and refers to photographs submitted by Mr X.
• The case officer’s report considers the impact on Mr X’s residential amenity, including an assessment against the ’45-degree’ guidance. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement on the extent/severity of the impact, even if Mr X disagrees with the ‘on balance’ conclusion it reached.
• I am not persuaded the alleged inconsistencies/ambiguities identified by Mr X in the case officer’s report have affected the planning decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault has affected the planning decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman