Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered planning applications in his area. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a double height extension to a home on his street. He says this is inconsistent as it previously denied planning permission for a single height extension on the same street. He says the newly extended building is now causing significant overlooking, noise, and parking issues.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to grant planning permission for a double height extension to a nearby property. He says there were objections, yet the Council later rejected an application by another neighbour for a single height extension, despite receiving no objections. He also says that the impact of the double storey extension was more significant.
6. The Council said that while it considers the issues raised in objections, the number of objections was not a key factor it considered in its decision making. It said it considered the single storey extension has a greater impact on the neighbour than the double storey extension because of the difference in the position of each building to its neighbours. It said this meant the impact of light and shade is different.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We look at the process a council followed to make its decision. If a council followed its process correctly, we cannot question the decision made even if a complainant disagrees with it.
8. I will not investigate this complaint. I can see no evidence of fault with how the Council decided to grant planning permission to Mr X’s neighbour for the double height extension. The Council considered relevant factors in making its decision, including its legal duties and its own Local Pan. It also considered neighbour amenity, overlooking, and loss of light.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman