Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to approve a planning application. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. The Council has explained its reasons for considering the development acceptable and without evidence of fault I cannot question its judgement on this point.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council ignored their objections to extensions to their neighbour’s property. They say the application was approved despite previous applications being refused over the years.
2. They want the Council to require the neighbours to install skylights instead of windows or to insist on obscure glazing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, Ms Y, and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X and Ms Y say the Council ignored their objections to their neighbour’s planning application. They also say the Council ignored its own previous refusals of planning application for the same site.
7. Mr X and Ms Y say the development will overshadow their home and impact on their privacy.
8. Councils should approve planning applications in line with their local development plan, unless material planning considerations suggest otherwise.
9. Material planning considerations may include:
• Access to the highway.
• Protection of ecological and heritage assets; and
• The impact on neighbouring amenity.
10. Material planning considerations do not include:
• Views from a property.
• The impact of development on property value; and
• Private rights and interests in land.
11. Councils may impose planning conditions to make development acceptable in planning terms. Conditions should be necessary, precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other regards.
12. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with what the Council did. We look at whether there was fault in how it 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.
13. The Planning Officer wrote a report on the proposal. This includes the history of previous planning applications for the site and the objections received. The planning officer noted the previous applications were not concerned about the principle of a two-storey house on the site.
14. I am satisfied the Officer’s Report refers to the relevant planning policies and shows the Council considered the impact of the development on Mr X and Ms Y’s home. It also explains why the Council considered the proposal acceptable.
15. 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 the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman