Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension next to the complainant’s home, and how it handled the subsequent planning enforcement case. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner about the planning application decision and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application and planning enforcement case were assessed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council granting planning permission for her neighbour’s extension, and about the way it handled her subsequent planning enforcement concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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
• we are satisfied with the action the Council has taken in response to the complaint.

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

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, it is important to highlight 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 decisions. 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.
5. And we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the complaint responses and notes/observations from the Council’s enforcement site visit.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above applies to the part of the complaint about the Council’s decision to approve the neighbour’s planning application. This is because the application was approved in May 2024, yet Mrs X did not contact the Ombudsman until October 2025. I see no good reasons why Mrs X could not have contacted us sooner if she was unhappy about the decision.
8. And even if this time restriction did not apply, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, so we would not investigate the matter for this reason too. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• the officer’s report summarises Mrs X’s objections
• the report explains why the proposal is considered to be acceptable. This is a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mrs X disagrees with it.
• Council’s can grant planning permission for developments which exceed the permitted development thresholds.
9. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed Mrs X’s subsequent planning enforcement concerns, as it visited the site, took measurements, and checked these against the approved plans. The Council has apologised for the time it took to update Mrs X on the outcome of the enforcement case. This is an appropriate way to address that part of the complaint, so we will not pursue it further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have contacted us sooner about the decision to grant planning permission and, in any case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council assessed the application and the subsequent planning enforcement case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman