Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council granting planning permission for a balcony at a property next to the complainant’s home. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to have contacted us sooner and, in any case, the alleged faults are unlikely to have affected the planning outcome or caused the complainant a significant injustice.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)
5. And in relation to the second and third bullet points, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
6. We also cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mrs X and the Council, which included the Council’s complaint responses.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 6 above appears to apply to Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the application was approved in Autumn 2024 yet Mrs X did not contact the Ombudsman until February 2026. I see no reasons why she was prevented from contacting us within 12 months of the planning decision, so we will not investigate the matter now.
9. And even if this time restriction did not apply, whilst I appreciate Mrs X is very unhappy the Council approved her neighbour’s planning application, it is important to highlight 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 it made its decisions, and consider whether any fault we may find is likely to have affected the planning application outcome, or caused some other significant injustice.
10. I consider there is insufficient evidence that fault by the Council is likely to have affected the planning outcome here, so we would not investigate the complaint for this reason too. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• although the development description did not refer to the balcony, it is clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application and is referred to in the officer’s report.
• the officer report considers the impact on Mrs X’s amenity, with a condition added for side privacy screens to be installed.
• it is for the Council to decide the weight to be attached to the relevant material planning considerations when determining an application, and it is entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the proposal is acceptable, even if Mrs X disagrees with the judgement reached.
11. And, with reference to paragraph 5 above, whilst I appreciate why Mrs X is unhappy about the officer entering her garden and taking photographs without her permission, I am not persuaded that any injustice caused is so significant as to warrant us pursuing this aspect of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the alleged faults are unlikely to have affected the planning outcome and have not caused her a significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman