Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council approving a retrospective planning application at a property next to the complainant. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was assessed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council granting retrospective planning permission for her neighbour’s extension, which she says changes her property from being detached, to a link-detached.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• 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. 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

4. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for her neighbour’s extension. 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 whether there was fault in how the Council made its decision. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
6. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• Mrs X’s objections are summarised and addressed in the delegated officer report.
• the report goes on to consider the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and Mrs X’s residential amenity. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on these issues, even if Mrs X disagrees with the conclusions reached.
• the report explains why a departure from the Council’s design guidance is acceptable on this occasion. In particular, having looked at internet mapping/streetview images, the Council’s observation that other properties in the road extend to the boundary at ground floor level, appears to be correct.
• the impact of the works on the value of Mrs X’s home is not a material planning consideration, which means it cannot be taken into account when assessing the application.
• access rights, maintenance rights, and works/damage to Mrs X’s property are all private, civil matters, between her and the neighbour. The granting of planning permission does not override these private rights.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman