Summary: We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to approve planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Dr Y complains the Council failed to properly consider her objections to her neighbour’s planning application for an extension. She believes the Council acted with bias and dismissed legally valid concerns about loss of light, privacy and overlooking. She also believes the Council favoured the applicant because of their industry connections. Dr Y wants construction paused until her concerns are resolved. She also wants the Council to apologise and award her compensation for distress and costs. 

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application for Dr Y’s neighbouring property. It consulted nearby residents, and Dr Y submitted objections the extension would block light, overlook her garden, and be too close to her property boundary.
7. A Planning Officer visited the site, reviewed the plans, and asked the applicant to amend the proposal to reduce its impact on neighbouring properties, including Dr Y’s home. The applicant revised the design by shortening the extension and repositioning windows to address privacy concerns.
8. The Planning Officer then reviewed the updated plans considering local planning rules and design guidance. Their report documented Dr Y’s concerns but concluded her main rooms would still receive sufficient daylight and the revised design reduced the extension’s overall impact.
9. The Council approved the application with conditions, including obscure glazing on side-facing windows to protect privacy. It made the decision under planning rules and Council policy.
10. The Council explained to Dr Y that issues like rights to light and the Party Wall Act are private matters and not material planning considerations. The Council followed the correct process, considered all the relevant points, and made its decision based on planning rules. Although Dr Y strongly disagrees with the outcome, there is unlikely to be evidence the Council acted unfairly or showed bias.
11. We do not act as an appeal body for planning decisions. We have no power to replace a decision the Council has properly made, nor can we compel the Council to act by for example rescinding all or part of the planning permission it has already granted. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how the decision was made.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. Because it is the Council’s role as local planning authority, to decide whether a design is acceptable after consideration of local and national planning policies, comments from statutory consultees and objections/representations from people affected by the decision. We have no remit to question a decision that has been made without procedural fault.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint about how the Council’s decision to grant planning permission. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman