Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a planning application for an extension next to the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her neighbour’s planning application. In particular, she says:
• the Council did not consider her objection before carrying out a site visit.
• her windows were omitted from the neighbour’s plans, and she believes they were missed by the case officer when assessing the application.
• during a telephone conversation, the case officer seemed more concerned about the financial consequences if the applicant appealed a refusal to the Planning Inspector.
• failed to explain how the how the height of the extension roof has been assessed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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 it did so, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered:
• information provided by Miss X
• information provided by the Council, which included photographs from the case officer’s site visit.
• information about the planning application, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I appreciate Miss X is very unhappy the Council granted planning permission for her neighbour’s extension.
6. But 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 the Council made its decision. 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.
7. I consider there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined the application, so we will not start an investigation. In reaching this view, I am mindful that:
• there is no requirement for representations to be considered before a site visit is carried out. Miss X’s own extension, including the windows, are evident in several of the photos taken by the case officer during their site visit.
• Miss X’s objections were published on the Council’s website five days before the application was determined, and are summarised in the case officer’s report.
• the height of the extension could be measured by from the scaled plans, and the dimensions are included in the delegated report.
• the delegated report considers the impact of the extension on Miss X’s amenity. The Council was entitled to reach its own professional judgement on whether the proposal was acceptable, even if Miss X disagrees with the decision reached.
• the Council has confirmed it does not have a recording of Miss X’s call with the case officer. And in any case, it is not fault for a case officer to highlight the possible consequences of refusing an application where there are no policy grounds or material planning reasons to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the application was determined.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman