Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered a planning application because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr and Ms X complain that the Planning Officer failed to properly consider a planning application for a neighbour’s extension.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Complainant’s neighbour submitted a planning application for a single storey extension and porch in 2025. The Complainants objected arguing that the extension would be too high and include an overlooking window.
6. The Planning Officer stated that a site visit had concluded that the height would not warrant refusal as it would slope away from the neighbouring building and the distance of the window (and the existence of a previously situated window) would not warrant refusal on the grounds of a loss of privacy.
7. The Complainant says that the Planning Officer report incorrectly refers to the other neighbour rather than their property when referring to the proposed window.
8. The Council accepts there was a typing error in referring to the number of the neighbour’s property. It says however that the Planning Officer had visited and was fully aware of the likely impact the proposed window would have on the Complainant’s amenity. The Council adds that such windows could have been installed on the extension later without the need for planning application. The Council says it had to take that into account when deciding whether the planning application could be refused on the grounds of the impact of the window.
9. Further, the Council adds that it is reasonable for the Council to take into account mitigation factors against overlooking windows, such as the erection of a fence or the creation of a hedge.
10. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
11. We are satisfied that the Council was fully aware of the impact the planning application would have on neighbouring properties from the plans and a site visit. Whilst the Planning Officer referred to an incorrect property number, I am not persuaded that this affected the final decision of the Council. The alleged fault would not therefore have caused injustice to the Complainants in our view.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate the Complainant’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman