The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for an extension. We have not seen sufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr B, complains the Council failed to consider the impact on his home when it granted planning permission for his neighbour’s single storey extension.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
When a local planning authority receives a planning application it must look at the development plan and material planning considerations to decide if the proposal is acceptable. Material considerations relate to the use and development of the land in the public interest and includes matters such as the impact on neighbouring properties and the relevant planning policies. It is for the decision maker to decide the weight to be given to any material considerations in determining a planning application.
The Council publicised the application for a single storey extension. Mr B objected.
The case officer’s report incorrectly refers to the boundary fence as a two-metre fence instead of a one and a half metre fence with trellis on top. However, the case officer visited the site and so was aware of the separation between Mr B’s home and his neighbour’s property. The report includes a summary of Mr B’s objections. The officer noted there is already a degree of overlooking and the proposed extension will not make this sufficiently worse to warrant refusing the application.
Following Mr B’s complaint, the Council confirms officers have revisited the site and measured the extension and there is no breach of planning control.
The case officer’s report referred to Mr B’s objections and explains why the proposal is considered acceptable. I am satisfied the Council properly assessed the impact of the proposed extension on Mr B’s home.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because, while Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the planning application to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman