Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for an extension which is contrary to its own guidance. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council approved a planning application which is contrary to its own guidance.
2. He says the extensions to the next door property causes overshadowing of his home and has reduced its value.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council granted planning permission for his neighbour to extend their bungalow to a two-storey property with dormers either side and a rear extension. He says the design fails to meet the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) guidance requiring a one metre set back distance from the boundary.
7. However, the SPD also says:
   “Meeting the minimum requirements set out in this document will not guarantee that a scheme will automatically be accessible”…”Occasionally there may be good reason why a particular requirement can be relaxed but this will need to be clearly justified.”
8. The planning officer prepared a report on the scheme. This notes the extensions will not be built up to the boundary and the dormers will be sloping and set in. This will maintain the space on either side of the property with 0.8 metres from Mr X home and 0.5 metres on the opposite side. It also states there are no windows on the houses on either side (including Mr X’s) so the neighbours will not suffer from overlooking from the side or loss of light.
9. The report specifically addresses the fact that the set in distances are less than required in the SPD. It explains the SPD refers to two storey extensions but the proposal is a one and half storey extension. It has also considered the neighbour’s amenity.
10. The SPD provides for the Council to approve proposals which do not strictly accord with the guidance and the Council has explained why it considers this proposal acceptable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman