Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to follow its planning guidance when approving a planning application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the guidelines in its ‘Alterations and Extension - Supplementary Planning Document’ (the SPD) when granting planning permission for an extension at a neighbouring property, and has failed to give adequate reasons for deviating from them.

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 Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the SPD.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Mr X is very unhappy the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour’s extension.
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. 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.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, so the Ombudsman will not start at investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• objections to the proposal are summarised in the delegated report.
• the SPD is listed as a relevant guidance in the report. The SPD says “Rear extensions should generally [my emphasis added] not be more than 3m deep for terraced or semi-detached properties”
• the report notes the depth and height of the extension in relation to Mr X’s property, and explains why it is considered to be acceptable in this case. That was a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach.
• case law has established that officer reports:
• do not need to include every possible planning consideration, but just the principal controversial issues.
• do not need to be perfect, as their intended audience are the parties to the application (the Council and the applicant) who are well versed on the issues; and
• should not be subject to hypercritical scrutiny, and do not merit challenge unless their overall effect is to significantly mislead the decision maker on the key, material issues.
• each case is assessed on its own merits.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the planning application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman