Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for extensions at a property next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome, and its apologies were a satisfactory way to address faults in the subsequent communications with the complainant. We also could not achieve one of the outcomes the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider the impact on his property when approving his neighbour’s planning application.

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
• 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With regard to the first bullet point, 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 Mr X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• ‘street-view’ images of the application site and Mr X’s home.
• the Council’s ‘Extensions and alterations to dwellings – Supplementary Planning Document’.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council granted planning permission for the works to his neighbour’s property.
6. 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, and we consider if any fault we may find is likely to have affected the planning outcome. In other words, we will only pursue a complaint if we are satisfied 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.
7. On balance, I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault in the way the Council assessed the application has affected the planning outcome, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated report.
• the report considers the impact of the proposal on Mr X’s amenity.
• whilst the delegated report does not specifically refer to Mr X’s side windows, the Council’s complaint responses provide further explanation as to why it considers any impact on these windows would have been insufficient to justify refusal of the application.
• in terms of the relationship between the two buildings:

- the proposed single storey, side extension replaces and repositions an existing single storey, side extension.

- the existing gap between the side elevation and the shared boundary is retained at first floor level.

- the proposal does not extend beyond the main, front building line.

- the rear extensions do not breach the 45-degree line taken from the corner of Mr X’s property.

- the roofs of the two-storey elements closest to Mr X are set lower than the existing roof ridges.

• less weight is normally placed on light entering secondary windows to a room, and light entering non-habitable rooms.
• the ‘right to light’ and party wall agreements are private, civil matters which cannot be taken into account when determining a planning application.

8. I am also satisfied the Council’s apologies for faults/delays in its subsequent communications with Mr X, were a reasonable way to address this part of the complaint.
9. Finally, we could not achieve one of the outcomes Mr X is seeking, as we could not direct the Council to amend the planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council has affected the planning outcome,
• the Council has provided a satisfactory response to address faults in its subsequent communications with him.
• we cannot achieve one the outcomes he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman